Criticisms Abound Despite BMW’s Hydrogen 7 Innovations

As mentioned by others, the hydrogen ICE is an excellent bridging technology. It will allow the consumer to create a demand for H2 which may finally kick-start the creation of H2 fueling stations. This may be the only way to get around the \”chicken or egg\” issue in the near term.

The problem is CARB (California Air Resources Board). They are requiring a certain number of zero emissions vehicles (ZEV\’s) but they only allow hydrogen fuel cells and electric vehicles to meet their standards. Hydrogen ICE\’s are not allowed - not because their emissions exceed the emissions standards - just because CARB wants fuel cells rather than dirty old ICE\’s.

Auto companies will ONLY make ZEV\’s because they are mandated. CARB\’s insistence on having FCV\’s will actually slow the adoption of hydrogen because FCVs are so much more expensive than ICE\’s.

CARB should allow hydrogen ICE\’s to meet the ZEV standard at least for the next decade or so.

Mr. Talbot seems to be putting 2+2 together and getting 3. I read Joseph Romm\’s great analysis re the production of hydrogen and concluded conventional methods of production aren\’t sufficient from a practical standpoint. That\’s why research is necessary to develop new methods to engineer this problem. In fact, no one has even mentioned producing hydrogen \’on-the-fly\’ as an option. Bingo, all the production, storage and distribution problems go away!! And lets make hydrogen from water!!

BMW is doing it right. This is a transition vehicle, to bridge the gap between now and when the infrastucture for hydrogen exists. Fuel cells may be more efficient, but they can only be used after the hydrogen fuel stations are built. What we need to do is replace the electric power industry with renewable energy as quickly as possible and add additional capacity for electrolytic production of hydrogen. Until that is done, Mr. Romm should not complain about them. We should be building at least 50 GW of renewable capacity per year until demand is met and all carbon-fueled electric power is finished.

It is disappointing to read such close-mindedness in an engineering blog. H2 combustion is a great carbon-free solution and NOx emissions are very effectively reacted out in the exhaust stream. True, the electricity for electrolysis needs to come from renewable resources to be carbon free but that industry is booming. Hasn't anyone seen the thousands of wind turbines generating 4,000,000,000+ watts in West Texas?

It seems to me that burning hydrogen directly in an ic engine makes more sense and would be cheaper by a large margin than fuel cells. As for the 1000 lbs of CO2 from generating the hydrogen, the same would be true if it was being used in a fuel cell rather than an ic engine. It would be far easier (and cheaper) to convert existing vehicles to hydrogen/gasoline burning than to fuel cell/electric.

Go to: //www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/the_case_for_nuke_cars_it_s_called_hydrogen_column

Then do the math.

I believe the CO2 from Hydrogen mentioned in the article refers to the upstream emissions that come from producing the hydrogen.
Similarly, a plug in electric vehicle produces no emissions while driving, but there are still emissions associated with the production of electricity used to charge the vehicle. these are issues that have to be considered to get a full view of the situation.

Another point not mentioned regarding H2 "fired" vehicles, is the fact that a higher percentage of our atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen. Normal combustion byproduct of any "burn" includes Nitrous Oxide, a major polutant now doing big damage to our planet''s eco system.

Face it. It''s either H2 fuel cells, batteries or some form of electromotive means. And all must be derived from nuclear sources until someone pulls the plug on excessive grants to study every other useless matter and apply total focus on fusion energy. H2 will only be a means of transporting energy unless a renewable battery can be discovered.

Let's see.... If you burn Hydrogen in the presense of Oxygen, the result is water... Nowhere there did I see ANY carbon compounds... So; Where did all the CO2 referenced by Mr Talbot come from??? There is NO CO2 produced by using Hydrogen as a fuel in a motor vehicle! In fact, Hydrogen is a negative polluting fuel; the more you burn, the cleaner the air gets as other pollutants are captured an converted to solids that "fall out".