General Chat
Q:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060912/bs_nm/autos_bmw_hydrogen_dc
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
They have been around for a long, long, time....
A:
"BMW will roll out the world's first hydrogen-burning car in serial production"
Read the article before you make your worthless comments.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
Good.
1976 280Z
Draw-Through Turbo, 10 PSI, 4 Bbl Holley, E88, L28 (Flat), 10:1 CR, 5 Spd
1974 Corvette Stingray:
350, 400 Automatic, T-Tops, 8.5:1 CR, 78,000 Miles
1994 Acura Integra:
1.8L, 5 Spd, 189,000 and Counting!
A:
I said they (hydrogen cars) have been around for a long, long time. I was not commenting on the production side.
If you want a comment on "serialized" production, then producing such a car is silly. CNG and LNG are plentiful and pack a better punch for performance and mileage AND have been in serialized production. Just TRY and find a filling station for a pure hydrogen powered car, LOL.
Bottom line, it's no better than other liquid fueled cars that have ever been produced, serial or not.
A:
i know of a hydgrogen gas station and i'm sure there are online resources to track down others if you were traveling.
_____________________________________________
'05 350Z Chrome Silver Touring
'73 240Z
A:
hydrogen cars have been around for a while...bmw has had the tech to produce them for atleast a few years but the infrastructure needed to support them is the key. how do you sell the cars without the infrastructure? but then again how do you put money into the infrastructure without the sales?
i mean heres an article on BMW hydrogen cars from well over 5 years ago. it states the car will be able to run on gas and hydrogen but whats the point of a hydrogen powered car if theres no hydrogen around?
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010724/FREE/107240703&SearchID=73256672924333
---------------------
03 CS Touring
VIN #189
Post Edited (Sep 12, 5:18pm)
A:
"Just TRY and find a filling station for a pure hydrogen powered car"
It was less than 100 years ago that people said the same thing about gasoline/diesel.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
"It was less than 100 years ago that people said the same thing about gasoline/diesel"
No, that was a personal car of ANY kind. Now we have liquid fueled cars, This is just another liquid fueled car. The question now is WHY use Hydrogen when other liquid fuels are so plentiful AND the infrastructure already exists AND other liquid fuels are cheaper AND other liquid fuels are more powerful?
LNG is ALREADY a better fuel and is available at any WalMart and most grocery stores? The question is WHY would anyone invest in a similary technology that costs more and delivers less? WHY would anyine buy a more exensive car that gets worse mileage on a more expensive fuel that is harder to find than a sheet of carbon paper?
A:
LNG = Liquid Natural Gas
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
You miss the point entirely. It's an effort to move away from fossil fuel. An early step by an innovative company.
Any more questions?
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
agreed
A:
"You miss the point entirely. It's an effort to move away from fossil fuel. "
No, the point is WHY would anyone buy a MORE exensive car that gets WORSE mileage using a MORE expensive fuel in a LESS efficient way? That is a toy for the rich and misguided. Most people still do not realize that a fossil fuel economy is better for the environment than a hydrogen economy.
Either way you look at it, it's the OPPOSITE of what needs to be done if you are concerend for cost, efficiency, or the environment. It's ecologically stupid.
Post Edited (Sep 13, 11:54am)
A:
"Most people still do not realize that a fossil fuel economy is better for the environment than a hydrogen economy"
Your gonna have to explain this one, I don't see how this could possibly be true. The only by-product of Hydrogen fueled cars is water and we all know the by-products of fossil fuels.
Edit: and I know it is not more economical to use hydrogen, I just don't see how it more harmfull to the enviroment.
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
Post Edited (Sep 13, 12:01pm)
A:
I think the problem lies in the fact that putting water vapor into the air will create humidity beyond belief. This in turn would create a "heat trap" that would raise temperatures by an unknown amount...Of course, this is all in theory, the same way that Global Warming is only a theory. Sorry if that strikes a nerve, but it was and still remains a theory.
On the flipside, it may just make it rain more...good thing, considering the last few summers have been a little dry here in Nashville.
My thoughts...
Previously owned: 2005 Z Enthusiast, Super Black, 6 spd.
Currently lease: 2006 Pathfinder S, Silver, Auto
"She is (and always will be) my little deuce coupe, you don't know what I got!"
A:
"It's an effort to move away from fossil fuel"
"I just don't see how it more harmfull to the enviroment."
Fossil fuels are used to generate the hydrogen. DUH.
Also, the law of conservation of energy tells us that all the energy to be obtained by burning the hydrogen must be supplied by the primary source, (e.g. coal powered electrolysis or steam natural gas reforming). Of course, since these processes aren't 100 percent efficient, there is some loss of energy. Therefore, the use of hydrogen as an intermediate is not justified.
Q.E.D.
A:
Kudos to BM-trouble-U for at least TRYING! The sticky bit (IMHO) is that hydrogen bonds very readily to lots of other elements. Unless one uses solar, geothermal, wind or some other non-fossil based form of energy to break those bonds, it's a horribly inefficient way of getting elemental hydrogen.
But at least they are trying. During any period of changing technologies it's best to try out lots of ideas because we all know that theorists are just afraid to build stuff. Leave that to the applied scientists and then we'll see what's best in the real world.
There will be no magic bullet or one size fits all solution to our transportation issues. Anyone who attempts to shoot down a solution because it won't solve every issue obviously doesn't have the mental capacity to put puzzles together.
The main thing is that if we keep pumping ancient carbon in the air, we're all going to be in very uncomfortable living situations. We need to investigate just about every way to still have our wonderful cars -- but in a carbon neutral cycle. Being a naysayer on every new attempt to resolve the issue is just basically comic relief. If someone's not bright enough to realize what's coming down the pipe, then Darwin will take care of it. Not my problem. :)
Peace!
don
A:
"Anyone who attempts to shoot down a solution because it won't solve every issue"
Hydrogen solves NOTHING.
If it solved at least one issue (cost, economy, availability, environment) then it's worth a try. Shooting down an old dumb idea is what reasonable people with mental capacity are SUPPOSED to do.
The best solution for the next 10+ years is to work for real solutions, NOT for fake ones. Having an expensive, inefficient BMW wrapped arround your butt that still use tons of fossil fuels is NOT a solution, it's just another SUV.
A:
Hybrid77Z wrote:
> The best solution for the next 10+ years is to work for real
> solutions, NOT for fake ones.
Would you be so kind as to enlighten us on how the work for real solutions is progressing?
A:
It takes fossil fuel to produce gasoline/diesel too.... but with that form of fuel, you require oil to produce the electricity, AND also oil as the raw material to produce the product. Even if a non-fossil fuel electricity plant is being used, crude oil is required as the raw material for the finished product.
Both sides of the coin have to be taken into account....fuel to produce the power required in mfg, and the raw material to produce the finished product. Hydrogen can be produced with almost no oil being used. Gasoline has to use oil, no getting around it.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
Here is a hint:
A real solution to using less fossil fuels (and using what limited resourses we do have in a more eco-friendly manner) DOES NOT INVOLVE making very heavy, very expensive, very inefficient personal vehicles that still rely ultimately on fossile fuels.
Here is another hint:
A real solution would address total fuels consumption. 75% of consumed fuel is NOT being used by personal transportation.
Real solutions are in boring areas like housing, manufacturing, general business operations. Fake solutions are in BMW Marketing that sell such things as an inneficient hydrogen personal automobile as an "improvement" when in actuality it's no better than a Chevy Suburban.
A:
"Hydrogen can be produced with almost no oil being used"
Not today and not in mass quantities.
Hydrogen is ALWAYS an intermediary that takes more energy to produce it than you will ever get out of it, no getting around that. Fossil fuels by their very nature already GIVE more energy than it takes to deliver them, no getting around that.
A:
Concerning Hybrids hints:
<shutter> I agree completely. Our fuel consumption problems have very little to do with cars.
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
I never said it was effecient, neither were gasoline engines when they were in their infancy, or even 30 years ago.... but, hydrogen can be produced with virtually no crude oil being used, for all practical purpose, zero fossil fuel usage. You can not do that with gasoline/diesel, crude oil will be used on at least one side of the process.....and there is no way around that. Even if the power to produce gasoline is provided by a hydro or a nuke power plant, you still need crude oil as the raw material. That equals fossil fuel usage.
Your methodology relies on crude oil on at least one side of the process. Alternative fuels CAN be produced, even at this primitive stage, with no crude oil/fossil fuel being used. Quantity will come after developement, like in all forms of technology. Alternative fuels are in their infancy, good ole gasoline/diesel have been under development for better than 100 years.
Naysayers would have killed petro fuel in favor of whale oil.....but they were running out of whales, the same will happen to fossil fuel...that you can't get around either.
The point is an effort being made to produce energy with no fossil fuel usage. That will not happen over night. Only through effort, and a try try again attitude will it ever happen. The horse stepped aside at one point in time.....and I'm sure there were individuals, much like you Hybrid, that resisted it to the end. How many people ride horses to work and read by a lamp burning whale oil at night? One day, crude oil will join whale oil and horse drawn buggies.....this world will have to be ready for that time. The time to prepare was yesterday.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
"The point is an effort being made to produce energy with no fossil fuel usage...That will not happen over night"
LOL, that's called atomic power and reactors have been around for 50 years (much longer than "over night" and still has teething pains). THAT is the ONLY WAY to pull off enough energy to waste on a conversion process that eventually makes hydrogen as a product. You FIRST have to invest and bring on-line that vast network of nuke plants or the whole idea of burning H2 as an "energy loss" product is moot.
You keep failing to understand that combustion, flamable gasses and atomic power ARE MATURE SCIENCES. The equations are well known so it's just a matter of calculation these days to get a "number". It's not a resistance to changing but a complete understanding of what is really required and an indignation of people that don't want to understand the COMPLETE scientific process involved and only say stupidly "it only makes water, it's so clean!".
Petroleum is also a MATURE SCIENCE and current reserves will last at least 100 years (some are estimating closer to 125 years). Using up MORE of that limited resource NOW to waste on conveting it to hydrogen is dumb, plain and simple. If you want to stretch limited supplies till Nukes are built then you DON'T waste it by converting it to H2 and then putting that into a heavy personal car. It's an energy LOOSER all the way around.
Unless you go nuke, you'll burn MORE petroleum FASTER by driving a hydrogen car. Now that is a step backwards, not forwards.
A:
Even I agree with Hybrid on this - he makes good clear aguments for his stand and Atomic power has been so beaten into anathema by the anti-nuke crowd that the lack of building atomic power plants have cost this country untold 100's of billions of dollars in waste and pollution.
Ed and Jeanne's
ZXelda 1981 280 ZXT: ZXena 1990 300 ZX
1941 Buick Special Sedanette (Betty)
1956 Dodge Royal (Dorothy)
1971 Buick Riviera (Rita)
1975 Ford F-150 Stepside (Fiona)
1992 Firebird (Frieda)
A:
Everyone has jumped on the U.S. for fuel consumption and pollution - but how many developing countries are doing anything to prevent the same thing.
Look at Russia's horrible destruction of resources and land. Now China is going in the same direction.
Ed and Jeanne's
ZXelda 1981 280 ZXT: ZXena 1990 300 ZX
1941 Buick Special Sedanette (Betty)
1956 Dodge Royal (Dorothy)
1971 Buick Riviera (Rita)
1975 Ford F-150 Stepside (Fiona)
1992 Firebird (Frieda)
A:
Well,
True visionaries will not contradict basic physical laws.
True visionaries are always open to understanding nature.
True visionaries look at the big picture.
False visionaries when confronted with physics or the big picture start using phrases like "naysayers" or "we have to do something, even if it's wrong" instead of dropping a bad idea and working the problem.
False visionaries cling to the vision, it's more important to them than reality.
False visionaries usually end up in elected office (D-CA).
Like I said, if you're concerned about saving energy, really concerned, you address the BORING things like housing, manufacturing, general business operations that consume 70-75% of the energy. Just a 15% savings there is the same thing as making ALL CARS 60% more efficient.
I would not mind having an H2 car.
They would be great if H2 was naturally occuring in large and naturally renuable quantities on Earth. It's not. Making H2 in bulk through a series of process looses energy. If you want to save energy, then using it to make less is kinda stupid.
Post Edited (Sep 14, 7:31am)
A:
A bunch of slide rule toting propeller heads also said that Chuck Yeager was going to die when he hit Mach 1.......they had degrees in Physics. He didn't die.
The first nuclear explosion......another bunch of slide rule toting propeller heads believed the world was going to fall into an unbreakable chain reaction and be destroyed. We're still here.
They all had calculations to back it up too. Doing the impossible is common among visionaries.
Who knows where a solution will be found, or what form it will take.....only by trying will one be found.
Ken
'82ZX n/a 2+2
'02 Sportster XL1200C
A:
Damn Right!
Doing something new (without all the variables known in advance) always can have unforeseen risks. Results of caclulations varry depending on the "guesses" that are used in the equations.
Wrong!
Doing something old (with all the variables well known to at least 4 decimal places) is hardly up for debate as to the outcome. The reactions of Hydrogen are well known. Internal combustion with Hydrogen is well known. The processes of manufacturing Hydrogen are well known.
Hoping for a different outcome to well known scientific equations goes against the very foundations of the scientific method. The whole basis of modern science is REPRODUCIBILITY of results. People that hope that some DIFFERENT outcome will happen under standard conditions from a chemical equation are people that are against rational science and are aligned with non-science (non-sense).
Only by reason will a solution be found.
NONE will be found by hoping that science and chemistry and physics is wrong about the simplest atom in the universe.
A:
"LNG = Liquid Natural Gas
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
You miss the point entirely. It's an effort to move away from fossil fuel. An early step by an innovative company.
Any more questions?"
My biggest one is how is Hydrogen NOT a fossil fuel? it's not made from water. it's steam reformed from Natural Gas, wich is predominantly derived from Fossil Fuel Deposits.
Being that I worked for the Two largest suppliers of H2 (for alternately the Space Shuttle, and for Vehicles) in the nation, I think I know what I'm talking about here.
Hydrogen is derived from Natural Gas, making it-in my mind at least-a fossil fuel. The energy to get it from water (the only NON-FOSSIL source) will take more energy that it produces. Unless someone starts cranking out Nuke Energy to form H2 from water, it ain't happenin' economically any time soon.
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
A:
"LNG is ALREADY a better fuel and is available at any WalMart and most grocery stores? "
Hybrid, you are on the Hash Pipe again, aren't you?
There isn't a SINGLE Wal Mart or Grocery store that has LNG available.
Being I worked for the largest LNG Vehicle Fuel Supplier in the Nation, I think I know what I'm talking about here.
What you are doing is talking out your a$$ from pure ignorance thinking LPG (Propane) is anywhere akin or even equal to LNG (Liquid CH4)
LPG may be available everywhere, LNG is NOT. It is a dangerous Cryogenic Fuel using aerospace connections and special cryogenic tanks to transport over the road and in vehicles.
Please shut up if you don't know what you are talking about. On this topic, it's obvious your are once again bloviating out your anal pore.
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
A:
.
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
Post Edited (Sep 14, 10:05am)
A:
Propane at WallMart is in liquid form under pressure (it's a liquifed natural gas by definition). I meant to say LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS for the slow learners but I abreviated it. Liquified natural gas as in liquified petroleum gas products. Sorry you confused it for the trade names as I was using it in the generic meaning.
BUT the point is that liquified fuel products are available NOW. Having just another liquified fuel (H2, propane, methane, mehanol, whateverthehellitis) is not going to be a solution to anything.
Post Edited (Sep 14, 10:15am)
A:
It's not the back end that is harmful, it's the PRODUCTION end.
The hydrogen is predominantly sourced from fossil fuels to begin with, and the cracking of the CH4 into H2 and CO (yes, carbon MONOXIDE: Deadly Stuff!) using Methane-Steam Reforming (the preferred and most efficient process) makes the same pollutant load as simply burning the fossil fuel in the first place (for all intents and purposes)
It is the same ignorant argument for using "electric vehicles" and calling them "zero emissions"---people think because the END USER can't see pollutants, they don't exist. They forget about that High-Sulfur-Coal-Fired Powerplant just across the state line belching out pollutants provides the electron flow to charge their "Zero Emissions Vehicle"...
it's just economy of scale. The theory is that they can strictly control the emissions of large stationary powerplants far easier than keeping abunch of people ocmpliant in personal conveyances.
With the attitudes shown here on a regular basis, it's no wander they are marching in this direction. All you idiots pulling pollution controls off their cars will be the reason we all drive e-cars with governors and gps ticket writing capability automitically debiting our bank accounts for EVERY infraction....
i digress...
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
A:
.
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
Post Edited (Sep 14, 10:12am)
A:
"Would you be so kind as to enlighten us on how the work for real solutions is progressing?"
Ford has a complete line of CNG powered vehicles, Honda makes them, as does Dodge, Chevrolet, and even HUMMER.
These vehicles are SAFE, MASS PRODUCED, and EFFICIENT.
They are available at REASONABLE COST, and given some incentives offered by local governments to fleet operators CHEAPER than their gasoline powered (or diesel powered) counterparts.
Being that CNG is at LEAST 20-25% CHEAPER on a retail basis than gasoline, and has ALWAYS been so it really makes it a no-brainer, especially for local operators.
It is now possible to go coast to coast in a TOTALLY CNG powered vehicle. The infrastructure exists.
YOU CAN FUEL IT AT HOME YOURSELF! What OTHER technology gives you that coupled with up to a 400 mile range on a fillup???
The ignorance about alternative technologies is masssssssive, and people relying on the media and press coverage to inform them will be hopelessly behind the times when it comes to energy alternatives and what they REALLY can do!
More and more CNG stations are opening every day. CNG is a RENEWABLE RESOURCE. Many trash operators could easily run their fleet of garbag haulers on the Ch4 generated by a reasonably sized Municipal Landill. Unfortunately with the cost of electricity, there is more money in generating POWER from that same low-and-medium BTU landfill gas. Puente Hills in Los Angeles generates over 100Megawatts a day off more than 22 MILLION Cubic Feet a Day of Gas generated from it's landfill.
If I remember my gasoline gallon equivalent (gge) for CNG, that's approximately 485,333 gallons of gasoline a day generated DAILY from a DUMP. (16 cubic feet of 1100 btu CH4=1 gallon of gasoline btu equivalent)
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
A:
Their specific btu contents are totally different, and their storage pressures and temperatures are totally different.
LPG will not work in climates below -40 due to no pressure in the an unheated tank.
LNG will work until most atomic movement stops...
LNG is not LPG, they are two different animals altogether, and I don't foresee Buckley (or Buckley's Angel) selling LNG at any time in the near future.
LPG is not "by definition" a "liquified natural gas" it's liquified iso-propane, or is iso-butane the same thing as well? NO! They a totally different things, and NOBODY calls Liquid Propane "Liquid Natural Gas" or even "LNG"---they specifiacally relate to specific commodities, and each will have it's own DOT Placard on the Transport Truck, or the vehicle that is using them.
As much as you are trying to cover your a$$ on this one, your statement is jus plain wrong, and the terminology is totally inappropriate.
Bloviation is your strong point, but you put your foot in it on that post, you're wrong, just admit it.
People Are Idiots, Just look around here and you will see!
Tony D: "Knowledgeable but Caustic"... rationull
My brother from another mother calls himself "Willie D"
Post Edited (Sep 14, 10:37am)
A:
I meant liquified petroleum gases.
I should have corrected Ken when he interpreted that abreviation and expanded my abreviation to differentiate BUT like I said, it was not important to the discussion of the distribution system of fuels.
Being a chemist by training I DO classify componds by class names just as "alchohol" is a generic term for an entire group of chemicals even though there are a bazillion industry trade names for that group of chemicals (and I'd never apologize to a drunk if he misinterpreted a post and drank iso-propanol instead of ethanol).
I was the complete opposite of bloviating.
I was trying this ENTIRE theread to cut through others bloviating by using very consise, very direct logical reasoning.
Post Edited (Sep 14, 3:43pm)