Mazda shows off hydrogen car
World first outside Japan for RX-8 RE
Mazda RX-8
The Japanese car maker used the opening in August of Norway's first hydrogen filling station near Stavanger as the occasion to show off its RX-8 Hydrogen RE for the first time outside Japan.
Leasing of this model -- a dual-fuel, hydrogen and petrol rotary-engine vehicle -- began earlier this year in Japan, a world first for a passenger car with a hydrogen internal combustion engine. This is the latest step in 15 years of Mazda research into hydrogen vehicles.
Car makers currently are tackling the problems of emissions on two major fronts -- hybrids, which have been available since the turn of the century, and more recently developing engines that can run on hydrogen, which is completely clean.
Few see batteries or electricity as a future direction. Instead, according to Mazda, most engineers believe that these are not stop-gap measures being used until fuel cell engines become affordable but genuine alternative technologies that make cars cleaner and more economical.
“A hydrogen rotary engine only emits water. It is not as efficient as a fuel cell, but structurally it is closer to the petrol engine, hence its manufacturing cost is lower and it has fewer durability issues,” said Mazda’s hydrogen programme manager Akihiro Kashiwagi.
“Compared to fuel cells, hydrogen engines with dual-fuel system are more likely to play a significant role in the initial phase of the hydrogen energy society in the future. That is why Mazda is currently focused on developing dual-fuel system hydrogen engine.”
For Mazda, with its heritage of rotary engines, this has presented a particular challenge, and one it has met with a number of solutions using both hydrogen and hybrid power.
These ideas came together in the Senku concept, first shown at the 2005 Tokyo Motor Show.
Company boss Hisakazu Imakisaid: “Mazda’s creativity and spirit of innovation” helps the company produce these solutions.
The four-seater Senku, he said, is a rotary sports car that “strives to be both eco-friendly and very safe, and makes us ponder the transformation of what we consider to be of value, of thinking about the world we live in...and yet is still compatible with some distinctive Mazda Zoom-Zoom fun.”
There are real world applications: Mazda first used hydrogen power in 1991 and tested a fuel cell in 1992.
This year, Mazda began leasing the RX-8 Hydrogen RE to its first two corporate customers -- both energy-related companies. These vehicles, equipped with a rotary engine, feature a dual-fuel system that allows the driver to select either hydrogen or petrol with the flick of a switch.
By the end of 2006, Mazda plans to lease about 10 RX-8 Hydrogen RE cars to local government and energy companies in Japan.
It took Mazda 29 months from the time it announced the hydrogen concept model at the 2003 Tokyo show to achieve the breakthrough, real-world rotary hydrogen vehicle.
Employing a dual-fuel system, the Mazda RX-8 Hydrogen RE can run on either high-pressure hydrogen gas or gasoline. This means it can be driven in remote areas where hydrogen fuelling stations are not readily available, easing driver concerns about running out of fuel. In addition, this system boasts environmental friendliness at the point of use -- zero emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas and near zero nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission when fuelled by hydrogen -- together with the same feel as an internal combustion engine. It uses engine parts and production facilities that already exist in Mazda’s inventory, which gives reliability and reduced manufacturing costs.
While the £2,000 monthly lease is high, it is about half the monthly lease price of a fuel cell vehicle already available in Japan. So think yourself lucky...
Hopeless exercise when it comes to 'Global warming', as all the emissions get shifted to the power station.
In addition, there 'research' also generally states that water vapor in the atmosphere also has a bad impact in 'Global warming', therefore enhancing the effect.
Even so, though, I am wondering if all this will eventually lead to the conclusion that it is not simply the pollution we cause in liberating energy that is the problem, but simply the amount of energy we use.
Shifting power generation from coal fired plants reduces pollution and saves natural resources (for what, I am not sure) but if we replace that power with wind farms, we are taking energy out of the climate. What is the end result of that? Surely if we remove enough energy from atmospheric phenomena, climate change will result? Similarly, taking the energy from the sun means we are redirecting that energy from wherever it currently goes, which I guess is warming the earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere. What would the end result of these changes be?
I'm no expert and don't know the answers to that. It may be better than burning coal. I am fairly sure, though, that pretty much most scientists would agree that absolutely everything is in a balance and could theoretically be explained with a huge number of mathematic equations. Change some values and you get knockon effects elsewhere. Where ever we get our energy from, there will be a reaction somewhere else.
As I said, I'm no expert, so I'd be interested in hearing a response on this from anyone more knowledgeable than I.
Still, hydrogen sounds better to me than gasoline. If your 7 litre Cobra burns hydrogen, you could even save on your water bills....
Hopeless exercise when it comes to 'Global warming', as all the emissions get shifted to the power station.
In addition, there 'research' also generally states that water vapor in the atmosphere also has a bad impact in 'Global warming', therefore enhancing the effect.
I remember reading somewhere that there is also quite a lot of leakage of hydrogen (upto about 20%) and that hydrogen is also a fairly potent greenhouse gas - can anyone confirm this?
Hopeless exercise when it comes to 'Global warming', as all the emissions get shifted to the power station.
In addition, there 'research' also generally states that water vapor in the atmosphere also has a bad impact in 'Global warming', therefore enhancing the effect.
I didn't know about water vapour in the atmosphere having a negative effect on global warming, but I suppose that can be demonstrated on cloudy nights. What I did think of though was in areas with high vehicle usage, towns/ cities, you may end up with micro climates of sorts. A cloud always hanging over your head!!
On the problems of energy generation, we are at a cross roads with technologies and the distribution network. Obviously burning fossil fuels at powerstations provides sufficient power to overcome the resistance losses of delivery to consumer. Renewable sources do tend to produce less power, so what is needed is a more local production system, in some cases even at a domestic level. For example there are the gas boilers which in addition to heating your home and water, they produce electricity using the usually wasted exhaust gases; the current setup up is that any of this energy that you don't use is put back into the grid and you are paid for it!
But it takes some brave leaders to push policies that would support real growth of the renewable energy industry. Seeing as the government pulled the powershift grants, there is no hope of anything but empty rhetoric on renewable energy.
Water vapour in the upper atmosphere is a real problem, which is one reason why Supersonic transport is a bad idea; near the ground it shouldn't be that much of a problem.
I for one don't like the idea of driving around with a tank of compressed explosive gas, petrols not exactly benign BUT i'm sure it's not as violent.
Hopeless exercise when it comes to 'Global warming', as all the emissions get shifted to the power station.
In addition, there 'research' also generally states that water vapor in the atmosphere also has a bad impact in 'Global warming', therefore enhancing the effect.
But a power station can be more efficient than a car so you get the same energy for less fuel. So yes you do get higher emissions at the power station but less emissions per unit of energy overall.
Ben
*above is pure speculation about power stations but if it is not the case someone in the design department of power stations needs to be shot !
Alfanatic raises an essential point: even after developing pollution-free power sources, we must actually limit the amount of heat we add to the atmosphere, if we are to limit our species's effects on out ecosystem's heat-equilibrium. However, energy captured from sunlight and later released into the system (after we use it) is heat-neutral.
Hydrogen (IMO) is the best way to store and transfer energy, particularly for use in mobile systems, because it's relatively safe (non-flammable without lots of Oxygen), fully renewable, and produces only humidity as a byproduct. Humidity isn't trouble-free, but it easily beats the alternative byproducts...
The other big advantage of Hydrogen is that it's produced in a chemically perfect way, using electricity; clean electric power production can be increased enormously, if we're willing to 'bite the bullet'. If Western nations put enough $$ (billions) into improving existing technologies (particularly photo-voltaic and infra-red capture techniques), while looking for killer new technologies, we'll cut the cost of clean electric power by more than 90%.
Fuel cells are stupid for cars, but great for stationary things like houses, because fuel cells have lousy 'throttle response' - they are best for producing power in slow, steady waves. If a fuel cell is used in a car, you need to design in enough battery storage to supply your transient power demands (throttle response), which gets heavy and/or expensive. Burning Hydrogen instead means that the only big power storage you need is your fuel tank; lighter and cheaper.
Committing to hydrogen means that we can go from existing products (cars) and (more important) existing manufacturing methods, to Hydrogen-optimized vehicles, which is where the real advantages kick in. Imagine a small, two-seat, rear-engined, carbon-bodied vehicle, powered by a tiny Hydrogen-burning turbine configured to be an electric generator (one moving part!), supplying electricity to drive the rear wheels directly, via a minimalist CVT and motor: light, simple, clean: Electro-Elise, anyone? This approach could be scaled up to buses and trucks, and down even to scooters.
BTW, excess humidity in the lower atmosphere may well have a benificial effect, in combatting the expansion of equatorial deserts (statistical increase of cloud cover reduces the albedo of the surface; less sunlight at surface means less high-pressure weather systems, more rainfall, blah blah highly theoretical and speculative, etc.).
Sorry for the length - I just had to get this off my chest...
Hopeless exercise when it comes to 'Global warming', as all the emissions get shifted to the power station.
In addition, there 'research' also generally states that water vapor in the atmosphere also has a bad impact in 'Global warming', therefore enhancing the effect.
But a power station can be more efficient than a car so you get the same energy for less fuel. So yes you do get higher emissions at the power station but less emissions per unit of energy overall.
Ben
*above is pure speculation about power stations but if it is not the case someone in the design department of power stations needs to be shot !
True power stations are more efficient, where a car engine is 25-30% energy efficient a power station may be upto 50%.
But putting in 10x as much energy to begin with means the power station needs to be 300-400% efficient to match the energy efficiency of the car as it is!!! Impossible as it breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Solar is a waste of time, you only get 15w per square metre if you had a 100% efficient solar cel! It is also unpredictable and unreliable. Given 60hp is ~45kw you'd need 3000 sqm of solar panels to power 1 car at 100% efficiency, given most are 20-30% efficient not likely is it? And you wouldn't have much of a car!
Wind power can produce the energy required although takes up a lot more space and is also unreliable.
Nuclear Fusion would solve these problems, but is still a good 50years away at least for a commercially viable power station and you're still using 10x as much energy!
Fuel Cells are also inefficient, expensive and dangerous! They have been known to explode!
Renewable fuel sources where the crops grown absorb some of the CO2 appear to me to be the most viable solution in the short term.
Better batteries and newer designs of ultra high energy capacitors should be the medium term goal, as they are a lot more efficient to begin with.
My two penneth...
Wind power is a waste of time, since the wind is unreliable you always have to have other power sources available at the drop of a hat, which means you incur all the capital and operating costs for no benefit. Meanwhile even when they *are* working the wind farms are a far more expensive way to produce power than the alternatives. I see them as a sop for the guilty conscience that feels we should be doing something to protect the environment, even if what we do doesn't actually provide any benefit.
Wind power is a waste of time, since the wind is unreliable you always have to have other power sources available at the drop of a hat, which means you incur all the capital and operating costs for no benefit. Meanwhile even when they *are* working the wind farms are a far more expensive way to produce power than the alternatives. I see them as a sop for the guilty conscience that feels we should be doing something to protect the environment, even if what we do doesn't actually provide any benefit.
Sorry I checked and stand corrected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_po
Batteries and electricity will have a role in the transport infrastructures of the future, and hydrogen and fuel cells will develop alongside, initially for use in heavier duty long distance applications.
At present people have separate energy sources, with electricity from the grid, gas for heating and oil for transport. In the future Solar thermal and photovoltaic panels on the roofs of houses and garages will contribute to electricity and heat, which will be backed up by micro wind turbines, microgeneration technologies, heat pumps, energy from waste, energy crops, algae and offshore wind and wave power.
The batteries, flywheels & fuel cells in peoples cars will be used as load levellers by industrial companies and local authorities, as well as by private individuals who will generate their own electricity from solar and micro wind turbines.
Green MotorSport is developing motors and control systems for electric powered cars. We are also using sustainable energy from micro wind, solar and biomass sources. Green Motorsport has a range of future energies and solutions.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff