Hydrogen powered BMW

[Helevitia]

Although I dislike BMWs, this peaked my interest.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=1&u=/nm/20040923/tc_nm/autoshow_bmw_hydrogen_dc

Goeschel, responsible for technology and development at BMW, said the streamlined rocket car sprints from 0 to 100 kmh in about six seconds and reached a top speed of 302.4 kmh on BMW's test track at Miramas, France.

[Byock]

wow. that is impressive.

[agallag]

The company cautioned, however, that while the cars don't pollute, production of hydrogen as a fuel does entail pollution.

Hydrogen is obtained either from fossil fuels such as natural gas or by applying electrical power to water molecules. Ecologically, the problem of finding a regenerating source of primary energy remains.

This part is key. Until they find a good renewable source of hydrogen (or electricity that can be used to split hydrogen out of water), there's no point in pursuing hydrogen powered cars on a large scale.

Sure, they should continue developing the tech so we're ready for any breakthroughs, but don't get your hopes up that you'll be able to buy a hydrogen powered car in the near future.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by agallag
This part is key. Until they find a good renewable source of hydrogen (or electricity that can be used to split hydrogen out of water), there's no point in pursuing hydrogen powered cars on a large scale.

Sure their is. Power plant energy production is still far more efficient than your average car engine.

[GNEP]

Yup and it keeps the fumes out of the cities.

We've now got fuel cell buses on one route in London - quite wierd seeing steam coming out of the bus when it accelerates away at lights... all they need to do is get them onto the railways and we'll have come full circle

[ZokesPro]

It's a step in the right direction IMO, and it could be the start of something promising.

[UtwigMU]

We'll need a lot more nuclear plants.

[Dr Mordrid]

Agreed. Hopefully PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor) plants will become commonplace given their intrinsic safety. Advantages: no containment vessle needed, graphite moderated, helium cooled, low core power density & high thermal inertia (can't melt down) etc. etc.

Clean, cheap and can generate enough power to charge batteries or electrolyze hydrogen 'til the cows come home.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

I wrote about this problem at http://www.cypenv.org/Files/hydrogen.htm

Note that variable renewables (wind, solar, tide etc) are unsuitable, alone, because electrolysers must run 24/7 at full capacity, otherwise they become inefficient. Nuke is the only answer and the EuroPR reactor is considered most suitable as it combines safety with 96% recycling of the fuel (very little waste).

As nuke is not popular in the public eye, hydrogen cars will remain a niche application, not only because you need to triple the generating capacity, but also because the grid systems in all countries are not geared to transport the increased electricity (which is easier to transport than hydrogen).

[The PIT]

You'd then get the wet house effect and the heavy rain would turn to snow on mountains and you'd get the next ice age.

[KvHagedorn]

I like elegant solutions. Get all the fat, unhealthy people and put them on treadmills and rowing machines for an hour a day. They can get in shape and generate electricity concurrently.

[Technoid]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
I like elegant solutions. Get all the fat, unhealthy people and put them on treadmills and rowing machines for an hour a day. They can get in shape and generate electricity concurrently.

[Technoid]

Originally posted by The PIT
You'd then get the wet house effect and the heavy rain would turn to snow on mountains and you'd get the next ice age.

LMAO

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by The PIT
You'd then get the wet house effect and the heavy rain would turn to snow on mountains and you'd get the next ice age.

If every car in the world ran of hydrogen, the difference it would make to rainfall or humidity would be negligible.

a) present-day cars produce vast quantities of water vapour. As H2 cars are more fuel-efficient, the quantity of H2O produced might actually diminish.

b) the total water content of the atmosphere at any one time is estimated at ~12E12 tonnes, ie 12 trillion tonnes. If you have a global 1 billion vehicles spewing forth an average 4 kg/water per day, that represents only 0.03% of the total and that is absolute, not the difference from present-day vehicles.

c) the water content of the atmosphere undergoes a strong negative feedback effect, because the major source is evaporation from the oceans. If the RH rises, for any reason, the oceanic evaporation at any given conditions of temperature and atmospheric pressure lessens. Therefore, the 12E12 tonnes is essentially very constant, averaged over the earth's surface. This is why, although water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, man-made water vapour from burning fossil fuels does not influence climate change (as opposed to CO2, CH4 etc., which do).

d) in terms of RH, it might make a 1-2% increase in large, congested cities where buildings prevent air movements to dissipate the water vapour, especially in periods of temperature inversion.

I therefore believe that, in the unlikely event that H2 cars do become a major reality, they will not play any significant role in either weather or climate change, per se. OTOH, if the H2 is generated either from cracking natural gas or other hydrocarbons, or by electrolysis from fossil fuel power stations, there will be a severe concomitant generation of CO2.

[UtwigMU]

I found this link you might find of interest:

Nuclear plants across Europe by type and total power. It's in slovenian, but schemes and acronyms are self explanatory.

V gradnji means being built and second number is estimate for being built plants.

http://www.nek.si/nuklear.htm

Brian: Based on above and based on most powerful plant being Chooz in France at 1435MW, your estimate at 1.6GW for typical PWR is over optimistic.