Sorry if this is a repost, found it to be an interesting read. Looks like BMW will have the first hydrogen powered luxury car in the world. I know the idea has been kicked around for a long while and its been in the works for years, but it looks like it is finally being implemented...
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/03/01/8401015/index.htm?postversion=2007031513

Old news... I mean really old... I was in high school when this was mentioned during the energy debate in my AP Physics class(don't ask me why... just don't)... That was like 4 years back.
I myself had nuclear so I couldn't find any fusion powered car solutions... yet. :cool

Somehow I just cant seemed to imagine James Bond 007 driving one of these hydrogen cars. Top speed 147 mph. Poor boy would be run off the AutoBahn and he couldn't get away from anyone. :)

I would like to see how this hydrogen powered 7 pans out for BMW. If it works out this opens the door for many other more mainstream cars.

I personally think e85 is a more reliable and stable fuel source. Having a fire extinguisher beneath the car's front passenger seat does not exactly put my mind at ease. The idea that you cannot park the car in a closed garage is somewhat of a deterrent. I believe they are wrong about the car being safe since the Germans also thought the Hindenburg was safe as well. I guess it is an idea but don’t let the idea justify the consequences.

Matthew

I personally think e85 is a more reliable and stable fuel source. Having a fire extinguisher beneath the car's front passenger seat does not exactly put my mind at ease. The idea that you cannot park the car in a closed garage is somewhat of a deterrent. I believe they are wrong about the car being safe since the Germans also thought the Hindenburg was safe as well. I guess it is an idea but don’t let the idea justify the consequences.

Matthew

WAIT.

Before we go on, the Hindenburg did not crash and burn because of hydrogen. Experts agree that if the Hindenburg didn't have any hydrogen gas it would have still caught on fire and burned in the sky and oh the humanity.

I quote.
Careful investigation of the Hindenburg disaster verified the opinion of the engineers on the Hindenburg and proved that it was the flammable aluminum powder filled paint varnish that coated the infamous airship, not the hydrogen that started the fateful fire.

The Hindenburg repeated the famous experiment of Ben Franklin regarding collection of electric charge on an object in the sky. Ben Franklin flew a kite in a storm to learn about lightening. The captain of the Hindenburg provided the 800' long, 236 ton, aluminum-powder varnish covered airship as a much larger electric charge collector. As the Hindenburg was grounded by dropping landing lines, the experiment was complete and electrical discharge in the Hindenburg's skin started the fire. The Hindenburg would have burned and crashed if it had been filled with helium or simply held in the air by some other force.


As eyewitnesses noted, the hydrogen fire started considerably after the Hindenburg’s surface skin started to burn and was over in less than one minute. The diesel fuel and other heavier-than-air components of the Hindenburg continued to burn many hours on the ground.

http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm

WAIT.

Before we go on, the Hindenburg did not crash and burn because of hydrogen. Experts agree that if the Hindenburg didn't have any hydrogen gas it would have still caught on fire and burned in the sky and oh the humanity.


I quote.Careful investigation of the Hindenburg disaster verified the opinion of the engineers on the Hindenburg and proved that it was the flammable aluminum powder filled paint varnish that coated the infamous airship, not the hydrogen that started the fateful fire.


The Hindenburg repeated the famous experiment of Ben Franklin regarding collection of electric charge on an object in the sky. Ben Franklin flew a kite in a storm to learn about lightening. The captain of the Hindenburg provided the 800' long, 236 ton, aluminum-powder varnish covered airship as a much larger electric charge collector. As the Hindenburg was grounded by dropping landing lines, the experiment was complete and electrical discharge in the Hindenburg's skin started the fire. The Hindenburg would have burned and crashed if it had been filled with helium or simply held in the air by some other force.



As eyewitnesses noted, the hydrogen fire started considerably after the Hindenburg’s surface skin started to burn and was over in less than one minute. The diesel fuel and other heavier-than-air components of the Hindenburg continued to burn many hours on the ground.


http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm



I was gonna post something similar but decided meh...

i seen an article on it...cool in thought and concept...but a Bmw big 7 that does 0-60 in 9.5 *thats not a 318i auto ;) * is a big NO NO :nono ...the e23 735i was good for a 0-60 of like 8.1 secs....

i seen an article on it...cool in thought and concept...but a Bmw big 7 that does 0-60 in 9.5 *thats not a 318i auto ;) * is a big NO NO :nono ...the e23 735i was good for a 0-60 of like 8.1 secs....


At this point and time its not about performance.

I did not say the Hingerburg crashed due to Hydrogen, I merely stated that they were wrong. I also believe that they oil and gas companies will some how find a way to discredit the hydrogen research. Imagine the affect this transition would have on the American and world economy. The truth of matter is that we live in a corporate world where profit comes first.

Matthew

This was not the first BMW 7 to run on hydrogen. A few years back they modifed a 750 iL and called it the 750 HL. A V12 on hydrogen - now that's my kind of "eco" car!

Both are rediculously impractical though due to issues in obtaining the hydrogen and then keeping it. Significant amounts leak out in a short period of time - hence not keeping it in an enclosed garage.

I really do think hydrogen is the better way to go for the future. I disagree with this ethanol push because it is not cost efficient and expensive. I believe it was late 1999 when BMW started the hydrogen initiative on a couple of 750's and by 2007, they have invested a lot money into this field.

um... hydrogen production involves consumption of energy which in turn costs more than the gas we use today.
the only actual cheap way would be nuclear, and we all drive plug-in cars.
per energy unit, nuclear energy is much cheaper than anything else in existence and is actually safer when handled properly.
its like flying compared to riding a train or driving.
you all can argue all you want but new studies finally reveal the costs of hydrogen production. however, hydrogen is the future fuel for racing, since it has higher energy capacity per mass unit than the batteries that store the energy.
i hope this is my last post in this thread... im not gonna even waste my time on it anymore.

um... hydrogen production involves consumption of energy which in turn costs more than the gas we use today.
the only actual cheap way would be nuclear, and we all drive plug-in cars.
per energy unit, nuclear energy is much cheaper than anything else in existence and is actually safer when handled properly.
its like flying compared to riding a train or driving.
you all can argue all you want but new studies finally reveal the costs of hydrogen production. however, hydrogen is the future fuel for racing, since it has higher energy capacity per mass unit than the batteries that store the energy.
i hope this is my last post in this thread... im not gonna even waste my time on it anymore.

However, if hydrogen was as mainstream as gasoline, I think companies would be hard pressed to find new ways of making cost effective. A single computer used to take up an entire room and had less computing power than our car keys. But it became cost effective because people saw the potential.

I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that if people see the potential in hydrogen then they'll find a way to make it cost effective.

Besides, the cost of it isn't the point. The point of hydrogen is that it's a clean fuel -- its exhaust is H2O (as opposed to poisonous gas).

I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that if people see the potential in hydrogen then they'll find a way to make it cost effective.


Exactly. There will come a time when hydrogen or whatever source the world turns to will be cheaper than gasoline and that is what the driving factor will be for conversion. Right now, I agree that it is a joke and as long as gasoline is as "cheap" as it is, there is no incentive to switch over to anything else.

I can just see Al Gore and Ralph Nader driving in a hydrogen vehicle together right now. :)

E85 is a bad alternative fuel, worse mileage and takes up huge amounts of corn production.
hydrogen fuel cells are the future, this is an intermediate step.

I can just see Al Gore and Ralph Nader driving in a hydrogen vehicle together right now. :)

Killing two birds with one stone is as easy as having them park in the garage with the car started. :devillook

http://autoreview.belproject.com/media/1/20060313-bmw-liquid-hydrogen-V12-engine.jpg

Building on what rootbeer said I THINK that hydrogen production produces just about as much pollution as a regular gasoline car. I read this from a reliable source and I can't remember what it was so don't start questioning me.

Actually the production of Hydrogen take MORE fossil fuel to produce. I have a friend who is in the feild of Hydrogen production for a major car company. His contract/research IS being supplemented by a large oil company. Interesting if you ask me! He is trying to find easier, cheaper, ways to get hydrogen.

Yep, Hydrogen is definitely not the answer to all of our problems right now. As many have stated already, it is actually very expensive to extract hydrogen. Storing it is a task onto itself. Setting up the infrastructure to allow this fuel to be used like gasoline is today is another huge undertaking!

However, what I take as the good news to all this is that car companies are actually taking the alternative fuel thing seriously ... every fuel option proposed so far has it's cons ... but the wheels are turning in the right direction. The next few years should be very interesting as more and more manufacturers bring alternative fuel vehicles to the market.

um... hydrogen production involves consumption of energy which in turn costs more than the gas we use today.
the only actual cheap way would be nuclear, and we all drive plug-in cars.
per energy unit, nuclear energy is much cheaper than anything else in existence and is actually safer when handled properly.
its like flying compared to riding a train or driving.
you all can argue all you want but new studies finally reveal the costs of hydrogen production. however, hydrogen is the future fuel for racing, since it has higher energy capacity per mass unit than the batteries that store the energy.
i hope this is my last post in this thread... im not gonna even waste my time on it anymore.

Agreed...but

Don't fall into the Hype. Hydrogen is another way for Big Corps to make more money off of us...I already own a v8 :(

I hope BMW doesn't go this route personally. They should go electric!

The truth is out there.

Who killed the electric car (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/)


Tesla (http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1)