Mazda's hybrid hydrogen vehicles to hit the streets this year
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Mar 30th 2009 11:10PM
posted Mar 30th 2009 11:10PM
It looks like the world's first rotary hydrogen vehicle will soon be available for lease, courtesy of Mazda. True to its nature as a hybrid, the Premacy Hydrogen RE relies on a hydrogen rotary engine to create the electricity that powers the motor. The system is said to boost the fuel range of the vehicle to around 125 miles, twice the range of the RX-8 Hydrogen RE, and maximum output is 110 kilowatts. We look forward to seeing the cars start rolling off the lots and into the hands of local authorities and energy-related companies this year. Finally, it looks like you'll be able to put that hydrogen generator you installed in the garage to good use.
Rotary? So what it doesn't burn in gas it'll burn in oil? ZING!
and put out 238hp on 1.3 litres. why dont you go drive 45mph in the passing lane on the interstate some more mr Buick man
110 kilowatts = 147.51243 horsepower
i was just referencing the standard Mazda RX-8's motor. but thank you for that. im wondering how big these hydrogen motors will be. the same?
I'd be tempted to trade in my Mazda 3 for a hybrid one if they release it.
IMOB - 123 75 1495
im guessing no Mazdaspeed versions...
Kittens give Morbo gas...
Yeah, good luck finding a hydrogen station for this. Hydrogen is crap and the entire industry knows it.
Yeah and Coal is CLEAN too huh? Go away.
Are you kidding me? Clean coal is crap. I don't see where the hell you got coal out of my post.
the problem is that hydrogen isnt a fuel, its a storage medium, and a crappy one at that. it's hard to store, and it takes alot of energy to make.
@andres: sounds like a distinction without a difference. What is a fuel if it isn't a store of energy?
@wjousts Conventional hydrocarbons like coal, oil and natural gas store energy that was created long ago by photosynthesis or other biological processes. So, sure, they are energy storage, but not in the same context as hydrogen. Every precious little bit of hydrogen that "fuels" these cars is generated by converting energy from some other fuel, such as by reforming natural gas. On a good day, you will get a tiny amount of hydrogen by solar-powered electrolysis, but in any case, you are not "mining" hydrogen. The current-day energy required to produce a unit of hydrogen is more than the energy contained in the hydrogen itself, thus, it's a storage medium.
They make hydrogen in Iceland using geothermal power stations, free energy in > clean fuel out.
Yeah, and the US has a load of those sitting around, right... right? Wouldn't it just be easier to build a fully electric car, charge it on a nuclear/solar grid and not have to worry about a new infrastructure?
Well you have Yellowstone... ;0)
One problem with your idea, is next time a really big solar flare comes along, you loose the transport system, as well as power. LOL
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html
Sadly, our grid is nowhere near even 10% solar, so I don't think we have to worry about solar flares doing any real damage to the grid.
Good ol petrol you can never go wrong with that! Although I seriously think hydrogen has a much better future than purely electrically charging your batteries off the grid; you can refuel a hydrogen vehicle and keep going, no need to plug in and wait 8 hours to drive another 40 miles like traditional plug-in electric vehicles! Just a few little upgrades to the current gasoline refueling station infrastructure and there ya go! all set for hydrogen fueling.
A few little upgrades? Do you understand the pressures that hydrogen needs to be under to be stored efficiently? It's going to take billions of dollars to upgrade the infrastructure, not to mention the danger of leaks. If you've ever seen a compressed air cylinder go off, you know they can explode with enough force to kill someone with the shrapnel.
Well a gasoline tank can explode too.... and send shrapnel flying too.
@KenA
No, it can't. Well, it can't unless you purposely puncture the tank and pump air into it, and even then it (probably) won't rupture the tank, it will just send a fireball out the fill spout. The vapor pressure in the tank is too high to explode. I generally don't like using the Mythbusters as a reference, but they got this one right. I'm too tired to go find it, but google is your friend.
gasoline can explode?
Although I seriously think hydrogen has a much better future than purely electrically charging your batteries off the grid; you can refuel a hydrogen vehicle and keep going, no need to plug in and wait 8 hours to drive another 40 miles like traditional plug-in electric vehicles!"
What are you talking about? Most of the plugin vehicles are still a year or two away from production, have a range of 100-300 miles, and they can be fast charged at a charging station for anywhere from 15minutes to 45 minutes. This is all first generation tech. How far do you think it will be in 5 years...in 15 years. The most optimistic forecasts for hydrogen have it being viable in 20-30years at the earliest.
"Just a few little upgrades to the current gasoline refueling station infrastructure and there ya go! all set for hydrogen fueling."
A few upgrades??? It would take hundreds of billions to upgrade, and unlike with EVs you don't even have the option of plugin in any available socket. You know nothing about hydrogen. First off you have to steam-treat natural gas to produce the hydrogen, there is about a 60% energy loss in this process. Then there is storage, the hydrogen would have to be a compressed (liquid is not an option as it would take a 60gallon tank of hydrogen for the equivalent of 16 gallons of gasoline) in gaseous resulting in another 10% loss. Hydrogen is also the smallest element and will evaporate at a rate of at least 1.7% per day....oh and its also highly reactive and 10 times more flammable than gasoline. This evaporation/explosion risk means it may have to be stored as liquid...costing another 20% in energy loss.
In total from the power plant to your car, a hydrogen powered car has an efficiency around 20-30%, compared to around 80% for an EV. In other words it would take about 3 times the energy to power a hydrogen car as it would an EV over the same distance. In 5-7 years EVs will be standard with at least 200+ mile range should actually be cheaper to produce than regular ICE vehicles.
Kojo, gasoline can explode. Gasoline explodes with two things, compression and air-to-fuel mixture. Gasoline explosions are the exact reason why an ICE engine works, the piston moves down, gasoline vapors enter the chamber and a spark plug ignites it, the compression and exact air-to-fuel mixture causes the gasoline to explode violently and propel the piston upwards and the vacuum left in its wake pulls the piston back down.
I'm not sure if I got that exactly right, but hey, I'm not an expert, I just read a lot. :P
I have an SAE paper on rotary engines with hydrogen. Apparently they aren't as sensitive to a thin, long combustion chamber as gasoline rotaries are.
I have no idea why we are pursuing hydrogen. It makes little sense. H2 has 2 primary sources; you can get it from natural gas (a fossil fuel) or you can get it from electrolysis of water. The former is still using fossil fuels, and converting an easy to store gas (one with considerably less energy density than gasoline, BTW) into a very hard to store gas with very low energy density, and some other carbon compounds. The latter is not efficient, generally it is understood to be about 60% to 70%, meaning that 30%-40% of the electricity used becomes waste heat.
Honestly, even with today's battery technology you'd be better off using that electricity to charge lithium batteries, which is about 99% efficient, and as long as you use the charge within a few days the loss due to auto-discharge is a fraction of a percent.
Hydrogen is being persued because it requires less infrastructure change than the alternatives. A gas station could tear up a tank + pumps and install a hydrogen tank, while still servicing gasoline. That's a per-station thing, so the load is purely on the stations that want to offer that service.
Electric-only vehicles require upgrading your electric grid + power stations to deal with the added load, plus installing new charging stations that A) can provide that much charge, B) are closely spaced together (due to battery life) and C) can be occupied for the hours it takes to charge a car.
Gas-electric hybrids are a temporary placeholder for now, because everyone wants to get away from fossil fuels. Hydrogen-electrics may not be a silver bullet, but they're a middle-ground the auto manufacturers and gas companies seem agreeable to.
System efficiency of Hydrogen is around 4 or 5%. To get to the 20 to 30% people quote, the hydrogen process uses fossil fuels at roughly twice the rate of a gasoline engine.
My main concern is the danger of hydrogen in the infrastructure. Hydrogen leaks. Fill a balloon with hydrogen and look at it the next morning. It's empty. It leaks through welds, etc. Impacts (crashes) will increase the leak rate.
Hydrogen in contact with platinum or palladium ignites at -50°F. All vehicles currently on the road either have platinum or palladium in their catolytic converters.
Hydrogen flames are invisible to the human eye. NASA uses special cameras to detect flames around the Space Shuttle.
Every accident with a hydrogen powered car will result in invisible flames. After a few first responders are burnt to death by invisible flames, there will be no more hydrogen cars.
The flame will propogate back to the tank. In most cases, this local heating will cause it to explode.
Hydrogen power is a bad idea being promoted by idiots.
But if water vapor (the 'waste product' from H powered vehicles) is like 23,000X a promoter of atmospheric heat retention and therefore global warming, won't this be far worse if most cars are eventually H-powered?!
OMG you are right!
And that would be the same for my tumble dryer, my cooking pot, an all these cooling towers the use for Power plants!!! And think about all the water evaporating from lakes and the sea because of the sun!
we are doomed. This has dramatic impact on the weather.
The difference between H2O and CFC/other chemicals is the H2O will rather smartly condense and return to the ground as rain water. Other chemicals tend to travel high into the atmosphere and just stay there until they either break down or get returned down in rain themselves (where they pollute there too).
This article may be a bit dry, but it's the best damn article I've ever read on the engineering challenges of the "Hydrogen Economy".
www.tbp.org/pages/Publications/Bent/Features/Sp04Uhrig.pdf
Wow...... Why are we pursuing this crap tech? These comments alone (Which I back checked quickly and alot are valid) just paint a bad picture..... Id imagine there are smarter and more influential people in the world than those who read engadget..... No offense but a massive amount of techies and wanna bes know this stuff than whose pushing it?
That's why our auto companies are begging for handouts right now while they're circling the drain.. right... right?
speaking of the failing automakers: for whatever reason i just noticed the Ford doesnt seem to be involved in any of this bailout nonsense. does this mean Ford actually has a grasp on how to run a business?
@Hacketmann: talk of hydrogen has been used as a distraction for a long time now. i cant remember how many Bush speeches talked about how fantastic the future will be with our magical water cars. meanwhile GM and Chrysler cant manage to make decent cars based on nearly 100 year old internal combustion tech. depression? what depression? look over here! shiny glass future cars that run on water!
hydrogen sucks! hybrids suck!
The only way forward in the auto industry is fully electric cars, its the only viable alternative.
Until we can pull into a local service station and swap battery packs in 5 to 10 minutes, (plug-in) hybrids will be the most feasible solution. If you limit your driving to 40 miles a day, then waiting 8 hours for a recharge is no big deal. However, the American consumer is simply not going to drop a significant wad of cash on a vehicle the can't be taken on an extended trip, even if they rarely take them.
At this point, I'd say this approach is as close as we're going to get to an all-electric infrastructure:
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi
Read the article... It has nothing to do with solar power. A Coronal Mass Ejection could overload the grid itself, as it did on a smaller scale in Quebec in 1989.
Doh! ...to not pressing reply first.
why would you want to use something we use as a life support. we cant drink gas & all they would have to do to fix the solar flair is put some time off radar maybe using xm radio to notify the car to protect it self not a big deal. the sun is everywhere duhhhh why not use it!!!