Political Crossfire Forums

Quicksurf · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 4675

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060912/bs_nm/autos_bmw_hydrogen_dc_1

Quote: MUNICH (Reuters) - BMW will roll out the world's first hydrogen-burning car in serial production early next year, the German premium automaker said on Tuesday, eager to put its stamp on cars with green credentials.
ADVERTISEMENT

The specially equipped 7-Series executive cars emit only water vapor when running on hydrogen.

The car hits the market next April and will be shown at the Los Angeles car show in November, the company said. It had said in March the hydrogen cars would arrive within two years.

A spokesman said the car would be leased to selected customers rather than sold because of its high price. Leasing rates would be similar to those for a top-end BMW 760LI with a full-service package.

The BMW 7 Series Hydrogen 7 Saloon is powered by a 260 hp twelve-cylinder engine and accelerates from 0-100 km/h (62 mph) in 9.5 seconds. Top speed is limited electronically to 230 km/h.

BMW has said it intends to build a few hundred such cars at first. They will be able to switch between burning standard petrol and hydrogen so that drivers will not be left stranded while the infrastructure to deliver hydrogen is built up.

"The integration of hydrogen drive in an existing vehicle concept which has already proven its merits in the market paves the way for an alternative to conventional drive concepts fully accepted in the market and with all the assets the customer is looking for in practice," BMW said.

The space that two fuel tanks take up means only the 7-Series will offer the hydrogen package at first. BMW's long-term goal is to offer hydrogen motors in all its cars.

BMW unveiled the world's fastest hydrogen-powered car at the 2004 Paris auto show. Dubbed the H2R, it can exceed 300 kilometers (185 miles) per hour and reaches 100 km per hour from a standing start in around six seconds.

While BMW is developing fuel-cell driven cars as well, it says it is concentrating on the combustion engine because the sum total of its features and characteristics offers the largest number of advantages and benefits all in one.

This again proves that the free market is the best place for scientific advancement. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Anyway, is this cool or what?
:tu:

Pzatchok · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 6560

only 20 years after GM puts one in a car show.

And only 90 years after the first electric cars.

Concept cars don't count.

Just like the EV1. Will be gone in 2 to 4 years. Or as soon as the lease runs out. Because they are NOT selling them.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Water vapour is a green house gas.

black noise · Joined: 30 Oct 2004 Posts: 354

Not to mention it takes a ton of energy to separate oxygen and hydrogen, and you can't get that energy from hydrogen too.

bob.appleyard · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 7469 Location: Manchestar, innit

cap'n queasy wrote: Water vapour is a green house gas.

This always gets me. Honda did an ad saying hydrogen cars only gave out "harmless water vapour." I'm sorry? Greenhouse gas Honda. Pfft.

Quicksurf · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 4675

So I guess I shouldn't get too excited? :-|

MplsBison · Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 3237

I'm confused.

Are they actually burning hydrogen in the cylinder or what?

I thought a hydrogen car used a fuel cell to make electricity for an electric motor.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Quicksurf wrote: So I guess I shouldn't get too excited? :-|
If it's not an absolutely perfect solution, without flaw, some people will always complain and make every (lazy) effort to find the flaws, regardless of rather or not these 'flaws' are legitimate.

eetee07 · Joined: 11 Sep 2006 Posts: 6 Location: Atlanta

You are all so quick to give it criticism and you look over the fact that it is taking a step in the right direction. Maybe the water vapor given off isn't as bad as the emissions coming from our cars right now, maybe this is just a temporary solution. But you need to realize that this is just one step towards a solution to our current oil problems.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: Maybe the water vapor given off isn't as bad as the emissions coming from our cars right now,

It's worse.

Pzatchok · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 6560

It takes more raw energy to build a hydrogen car and more energy to create the hydrogen to run it on then the small bit of pollution you save.
Counting in the batteries and fuel cell disposal energy consumption, its cheaper on the environment to just make a standard higher millage gas or diesel car.

If your building it and driving it just to make a point thanks for killing the planet faster.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6764 Location: Ohio

...

Water Vapour is not a greenhouse gas. You know what water vapour is? You guessed it, evaporated water. The s**t clouds are made of.

Pzatchok · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 6560

Its counted as a greenhouse gas because it contributes to global warming more than anything else in the atmosphere.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

tman_ndsu08 wrote: I'm confused.

Are they actually burning hydrogen in the cylinder or what?

I thought a hydrogen car used a fuel cell to make electricity for an electric motor.

Hydrogen cars can be powered in two different ways: 1) Fuel cells; 2) internal combusion. This case is an example of the second.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

eetee07 wrote: You are all so quick to give it criticism and you look over the fact that it is taking a step in the right direction. Maybe the water vapor given off isn't as bad as the emissions coming from our cars right now, maybe this is just a temporary solution. But you need to realize that this is just one step towards a solution to our current oil problems.

However, the main problem is efficiency. There is no way that hydrogen is going to provide more energy than the energy needed to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. That energy is produced by electricity, and that electricity has to be produced somehow.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

Pzatchok wrote: It takes more raw energy to build a hydrogen car and more energy to create the hydrogen to run it on then the small bit of pollution you save.
Counting in the batteries and fuel cell disposal energy consumption, its cheaper on the environment to just make a standard higher millage gas or diesel car.

If your building it and driving it just to make a point thanks for killing the planet faster.

This version doesn't involve a battery or fuel cell. It is an internal combusion engine with an alternative fuel source than just gasoline.

I do agree with the energy part--at least until we figure out biological ways to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Some researchers are working on using algae to do this (every plant does this, by the way, but in most plants the hydrogen is incorporated into carbohydrates).

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

Demonic Spoon wrote: ...

Water Vapour is not a greenhouse gas. You know what water vapour is? You guessed it, evaporated water. The s**t clouds are made of.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

FarPastGone · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 540

Quote: Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.

In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2 (but has never, so far, acted on Earth as part of a runaway feedback). Changes in the water vapor may also have indirect effects via cloud formation.

Most scientists agree that the overall effect of the direct and indirect feedbacks caused by increased water vapor content of the atmosphere significantly enhances the initial warming that caused the increase - that is, it is a strong positive feedback.([2], see B7).
Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].
My question is, would water vapor not have a less adverse affect on everything then CO2?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

FarPastGone wrote: Quote: Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.

In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2 (but has never, so far, acted on Earth as part of a runaway feedback). Changes in the water vapor may also have indirect effects via cloud formation.

Most scientists agree that the overall effect of the direct and indirect feedbacks caused by increased water vapor content of the atmosphere significantly enhances the initial warming that caused the increase - that is, it is a strong positive feedback.([2], see B7).
Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].
My question is, would water vapor not have a less adverse affect on everything then CO2?

Check the difference in climate between a rainforest at the equator and a desert at the equator. The rainforest will have the higher average temperature--the desert will at least cool down at night. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas.

FarPastGone · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 540

perdidochas wrote: FarPastGone wrote: Quote: Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.

In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2 (but has never, so far, acted on Earth as part of a runaway feedback). Changes in the water vapor may also have indirect effects via cloud formation.

Most scientists agree that the overall effect of the direct and indirect feedbacks caused by increased water vapor content of the atmosphere significantly enhances the initial warming that caused the increase - that is, it is a strong positive feedback.([2], see B7).
Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].
My question is, would water vapor not have a less adverse affect on everything then CO2?

Check the difference in climate between a rainforest at the equator and a desert at the equator. The rainforest will have the higher average temperature--the desert will at least cool down at night. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas.
I am not saying it isn't brotha, in fact I posted a piece from Wikipedia on Greenhouse Gases stating it is a Greenhouse Gas. My questoin is, would water vapor not have a less adverse affect on everything then CO2? Essentially it is a healty green house gas, that makes up our atmosphere (no matter how minimal a part of it), and is all around us. Would the mass release of water vapor hurt the Earth and its mechanisms more then the mass release of CO2?

That is the question I am asking.