Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.











Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this threadBMW Hydrogen 7 drops gasoline from the mix
(Page 1 of 1)
regguy @ Apr 4th 2008 5:30PM
Jake, like so many Egglectrics you don't have the facts.
The mono-fuel H7 runs on hydrogen alone and emits no CO2, and you're wrong on the mpg. The LH2 range doesn't suggest running the tank empty so you can't divide miles by kg.
see http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/475.pdf
slide 20 for an energy equivalent.
So if you and the Egglectrics are in charge of the decisions, which of the following from each pair must we eliminate: Mac or PC, Cable or Satellite, Ipod or MP3 player, battery forklift or propane, cell phone or wired, pen or pencils, IMAX or 35 mm film, VHS or Beta, analog or digital watches. Hmmmm?
Regarding criticism of energy and origins to create hydrogen, do you own anything made of cotton? Do you remember a time in history when cotton was produced using the energy of slaves? Was cotton abolished or slavery?
Don't be an Egglectric.
jake @ Apr 4th 2008 10:13PM
Huh, never heard of the word "Egglectric."
All I can say is, by your definition of the word, if I'm an "Egglectric," I wouldn't even mention the FCX Clarity.
"The mono-fuel H7 runs on hydrogen alone and emits no CO2"
I gave a link to the wired article for a reason:
"However, some nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are emitted, so the Hydrogen 7 is not a zero-emission car. ... planned hydrogen-only model will further reduce N2O emissions to within 10 percent of the maximum levels in the United States, BMW says."
Nowhere does it mention that the H7 will be a ZEV in it's hydrogen-only form; I know NO2 is definitely still going to be emitted; please provide a link to where you got that no CO2 will be emitted in the mono-fuel H2.
"you're wrong on the mpg":
I got it straight from BMW through the same article: "The car consumes about 15 miles per kilogram for a total cruising range of 120 miles, BMW says." The miles/GGE given in your link was 17 for the H7 on the FTP-75, so as I said, it gives roughly the equivalent mpg (15 and 17 is damn close). The highway number was 30, which is better than the gasoline version, but definitely not better than the Clarity. By all accounts the Clarity will get 68 miles/GGE combined cycle. There's no indication the mono-fuel H7 will get even close.
The only positive I can see in combustion based hydrogen cars is that they might be less costly than fuel cell versions, but besides from that, fuel cell vehicles and fuel cells in general are still much more efficient and useful in their applications.
Quite frankly, I think any auto-enthusiast here will find the power of the hydrogen combustion engines to be pathetic. The H7 gets 260hp from a large 6l V12. Ford gets 235hp from a supercharged 6.8l V10 hydrogen. I'll give it to them that it's very early research, but so far it doesn't look like much of an achievement to me.
"Regarding criticism of energy and origins to create hydrogen, do you own anything made of cotton? Do you remember a time in history when cotton was produced using the energy of slaves? Was cotton abolished or slavery?"
Every time there is any discussion of EV/PHEVs, the energy and origins of the electricity is ALWAYS brought up, even by people of the general public. But when discussing hydrogen vehicles it almost NEVER gets brought up. I'm just evening the playing field. For the same reason that the origins of the electricity gets brought up, I think it's valid for the origins of hydrogen to get brought up. I don't think the public has the equivalent "electricity => coal => heavy pollution" reflex ingrained into them in regards to hydrogen, it's mostly "hydrogen => H2O => Water".
jordan @ Apr 4th 2008 10:16PM
I think a bigger issue is that hydrogen has such a low potential energy, relatively speaking, especially combined with the current energy losses in producing said energy. Yes, that cost will decrease with more market share, but I think that hydrogen shouldn't be considered as fuel by itself; instead, only in combination with other fuels to gain some of its benefits (injection into normal gasoline to help decrease cylinder/chamber temperatures?)