Still trying to figure out their mileage quote but the rest of the story is pretty cool.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060215/sc_nm/autos_mazda_hydrogen_dc

sweet. it's nice to see something that was a concept car pipe dream turn into the reality of a quasi-produciton car. Even if it's only for testing/proof of concept purposes.

It can cruise for a maximum 62 miles on hydrogen and 549 km (341 miles) on gasoline it said

That puts it at 403 miles for both tanks. Compared to just a gas RX-8, we would need to get 28 MPG out of 14 gal (roughly how much I put in each time). That's a pretty good improvement, I usually get 17 MPG city and 21 MPG highway. But, I would have expected more mileage out of the hydrogen cell. Guess it's pretty small.

interesting article ..

however I dont know what the big deal about hydrogen is. It puts more carbon into the atmosphere to produce hydrogen than to use gasoline - unless nuclear energy is used to generate it. Then theres the problem of transportation and maintenance - all of which takes more energy and that energy is going to come from either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is much better here but there are long term wastes.

Instead people should look at what the race cars use - methanol/ethanol. Bacteria can break down trash into alcohol. Although burning alcohol produces carbon - this carbon belongs to the carbon cycle (from plants, trash etc) - so we are not contributing extra carbon to our ecosystem. We are essentially recycling. As opposed to burning gasoline - where we are releasing carbon formed millions of years ago into the ecosystem.

- Bodi

Still trying to figure out their mileage quote but the rest of the story is pretty cool.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060215/sc_nm/autos_mazda_hydrogen_dc
It's good to see them testing an hydrogen-powered vehicle, but unless an economical method for hydrogen production can be found, it likely will never replace, or even supplement, petroleum as the primary source of energy for the automobile. The process for producing hydrogen has been an electrolosis process that consumes lots of electical energy. That electrical energy is in large measure produced using petroleum (including natural gas here) so there is no economical gain to be realized in using a petroleum product to produce another energy product when the petroleum product can be used directly in the automobile.

On the soapbox: Hopefully, the "country" will wake up and demand the development of alternate and more economical methods, such as nuclear energy, for producing hydrogen. Off the soapbox.

steam shifting doesnt release carbon into the atmosphere
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405a7.pdf

is just one article

changing world tech http://www.changingworldtech.com/ has another way to reform garbage in to hydrogen and useful compunds etc

steam shifting doesnt release carbon into the atmosphere
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405a7.pdf

is just one article

changing world tech http://www.changingworldtech.com/ has another way to reform garbage in to hydrogen and useful compunds etc

Your first article assumes you have steam (not only that but steam heated to 850 Celsius). How do you produce steam? You have to burn fossil fuels or nuclear energy. You cannot say - burn hydrogen because that will be a circular argument.

Yes there are many reactions that will give you hydrogen without releasing carbon but at what cost?

The second link you sent didnt really describe any details (maybe I missed a page or something). It does talk about decomposing garbage using bacteria. Most bacteria will produce alcohol or methane. Some bacteria do produce hydrogen directly. I am not aware of the yields/costs as a result of using bacteria for hydrogen - it will however be greater than the cost of alcohol (because of storage, transportation etc).

Bodi

CNN carried the same Reuters' story at http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/02/15/mazda_hydrogen_car.reut/index.html but seems to be missing a digit on the gas mileage claims. They quote 41 miles instead of 341. I'm guessing they've actually driven an RX-8 and know the crappy gas mileage. :mdrmed:

Also the article states: "A rotary engine is suitable for hydrogen fuel because the separate chambers for fuel intake, combustion and exhaust significantly reduce the danger of the fuel's backfiring compared with a conventional recipro engine." Somebody needs to brush up on their wankelology. I guess since the rotor has three faces, they have assigned each one to a different part of the combustion cycle. :crazy:

At least Mazda should get some good press coverage as a progressive car company.

Your first article assumes you have steam (not only that but steam heated to 850 Celsius). How do you produce steam?
Bodi

using wind hydro or solar produced electricity.

I'd consider buying a coal burning RX8. That would be killer! Have a big smoke stack on the top of the hood like a big scoop.

More details can be found at http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/200602/0215.html

So roughly a 29 gal., 5000 psi hydrogen tank yielding 50 mile cruising range.

Besides the additional tank and plumbing and presumably ECU programming, I wonder what other changes are needed? Could this be made into a retrofit kit to mod an existing RX-8?

This will not happen soon so keep revving the Rotary and watch the fuel gauge drop. :eek:

Besides the additional tank and plumbing and presumably ECU programming, I wonder what other changes are needed? Could this be made into a retrofit kit to mod an existing RX-8?
Those are nice academic questions because you first need refueling stations fairly close together. So you can make all the mods you want to an RX-8, but if you can't get the hydrogen fuel....

Anyway, this ain't gonna happen during the useful life of the RX-8 so any such mods would be for naught. As ACRX8 says, fill 'er up with 91 octane and go.

using wind hydro or solar produced electricity.

that stuff wont come close to producing energy for steam at 850 C on a commercial scale - otherwise we will all be living off solar energy and wind energy and hydroelectricity.

- Bodi

PS - Solar Cell efficieny is around 15-18%.

also we could stick a turbine on top of the 8 .. we use a gas engine to get us upto speed and then the turbine rotates and produces electricity for the electric motor. When we slow down again we gas it up :-)

This will never work ofcourse.

Bodi

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1806
http://home.nestor.minsk.by/build/news/2006/02/1510.html

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4553.html

Those are nice academic questions because you first need refueling stations fairly close together. So you can make all the mods you want to an RX-8, but if you can't get the hydrogen fuel....

Anyway, this ain't gonna happen during the useful life of the RX-8 so any such mods would be for naught. As ACRX8 says, fill 'er up with 91 octane and go.

I'm not so sure. I commute less than 50 miles a day, as do a lot of people. There are currently several cities that offer free recharging stations for electric vehicles. I could easily imagine that pilot projects offering hydrogen refueling will exist in the next 20 years (my estimation of the useful life of my RX-8). I agree that it isn't practical for long trips but for people with average commutes, why not? Especially if the hydrogen fuel was subsidized or even free. Would you be willing to fill your hydrogen tank every other day if that meant you only filled your gas tank every other month? And got a tax incentive? And helped the environment? And not have to worry about carbon build-up on your engine seals. :mdrmed:

So it won't be mainstream but I bet it will exist in places.

I'm not so sure. I commute less than 50 miles a day, as do a lot of people. There are currently several cities that offer free recharging stations for electric vehicles. I could easily imagine that pilot projects offering hydrogen refueling will exist in the next 20 years

hydrogen refueling stations already exist in several cities around the world- the least of which is the one Mazda built for refueling the Hydrogen RX-8s

http://www.fuel-cell-bus-club.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=1&pid=2

vancover 1999 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/248093.asp)

I'd consider buying a coal burning RX8. That would be killer! Have a big smoke stack on the top of the hood like a big scoop.

Haha, that is a freakin great idea. Chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga-CHOOO-CHOOOO! Look at that RX-8 fly!

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1806
http://home.nestor.minsk.by/build/news/2006/02/1510.html

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4553.html

No ones arguing that other sourves of renewable energy do not exist. Whats the most efficient? Also will industry take it up to provide cheap hydrogen? Most of solar energy stuff will not work in many geographic areas - no industry is going to sit around and pay its workers when not getting enough sun.

Bacteria are much more efficient at creating alcohol than any solar cell. Plus they get rid of the waste and do not create huge explosive tanks.

Articles 1 and 2: 13% efficiency.

Article 3: Talks about some nerdy process - but does not mention anything about how efficient it is to make the hydrogen.

The whole point is efficiency and a practical way of making hydrogen. The only way to do so is to use some unlimited source like solar or wind. But those are not practical for industry. Solar is out unless you are in the desert. Same with wind. And I have no info on the process in the third article. Only way hydrogen is produced on a mass scale is fossil fuels now.

I have a feeling that you are just googling and throwing websites at me. :)

Bodi

If I hear or see one more argument over whether hydrogen will ever be used as a source of fuel on a large scale I'm going to crap my pants -- oh wait, too late.

Anywho, hydrogen burns inside the RX-8 hybrid. This isn't the future for hydrogen. It's just not all that efficient. Hydrogen will be used for fuel cells (already being done on smaller scale) for things like laptops and other mobile devices. Eventually this technology will be used in cars (and anything else that uses electricity) to some extent to power the electrical-assist features of future hybrids (anything from an electric turbo to an electric assist motor). Methanol fuel cells are also a possibility, but they have even more technological constraints than hydrogen based ones (right now).

Biofuels will undoubtedly take over in the shorter term for combustion engines and places like houses. But you can't power your laptop by burning some ethanol. Fuel cells are going to be a reality. If hydrogen is the best candidate for them it doesn't matter if it takes 6 nuclear power plants to get it -- it will happen. The ironic part is that they may burn biofuels to power hydrogen harvesting plants. It doesn't matter how inefficient it is because there's no competition against fuel cells for many applications. Lithium batteries are the pinnacle of electrochemical based batteries and they just aren't good enough (memory issues, current leakage, capacity per unit space, etc).

So in the end, it's not either or. It's both.

Best arguments for a Hydrogen powered RX-8:

1. It doesn't flood*
2. No more arguments about Octane grades

* Minor flooding causes the engine to float in the engine bay. Severe flooding is addressed by the "Hindenburg procedure".

:mdrmed:

If I hear or see one more argument over whether hydrogen will ever be used as a source of fuel on a large scale I'm going to crap my pants -- oh wait, too late.

Anywho, hydrogen burns inside the RX-8 hybrid. This isn't the future for hydrogen. It's just not all that efficient. Hydrogen will be used for fuel cells (already being done on smaller scale) for things like laptops and other mobile devices. Eventually this technology will be used in cars (and anything else that uses electricity) to some extent to power the electrical-assist features of future hybrids (anything from an electric turbo to an electric assist motor). Methanol fuel cells are also a possibility, but they have even more technological constraints than hydrogen based ones (right now).

Biofuels will undoubtedly take over in the shorter term for combustion engines and places like houses. But you can't power your laptop by burning some ethanol. Fuel cells are going to be a reality. If hydrogen is the best candidate for them it doesn't matter if it takes 6 nuclear power plants to get it -- it will happen. The ironic part is that they may burn biofuels to power hydrogen harvesting plants. It doesn't matter how inefficient it is because there's no competition against fuel cells for many applications. Lithium batteries are the pinnacle of electrochemical based batteries and they just aren't good enough (memory issues, current leakage, capacity per unit space, etc).

So in the end, it's not either or. It's both.

You are talking about battery technology vs. fuel cell. We were talking about the fuel itself. Specifically, we were talking about hydrogen as a fuel.

Just because the fuel cell is efficient does not make the whole process efficient. When they say a fuel cell is very efficient, it means that the process of creating electricity using catalysts and the fuel is efficient. It does not take into account the problem of generating that fuel.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not naturally occuring - unlike ethanol which you can naturally produce from waste. You have to waste tons of energy to create hydrogen. And current solar and wind technologies are too expensive for creating hydrogen on a mass scale. Bacteria decomposition will work.

The things going for hydrogen production are:
1. Produce from methane - natural gas (around 80% efficiency), producing from water is expensive and uses more energy.

2. Produce from bacteria and trash - dont know how efficient it is - but those little critters know what they are doing.

3. Big thing is that pollution is localized to hydrogen producing plants - which can then inject the CO2 into gas mines - basically as you pump out natural gas you pump in CO2 or some advanced means of breaking down CO2.

Bodi

http://www.iter.org

Check out the latest Popular Science magazine - BMW is working on a gasoline/steam hybrid - the steam generated from waste heat in the exhaust / cooling system.

Lets' see ..... Waste Heat ....Wankel ------ Great Duo

Use the waste heat of the Rotary -!!!!

Not up on web site yet - unfortunately

Bodi, again -- it doesn't matter how inefficient the entire process is. Fuel cells are in a class all by themselves and nothing competes. They will do whatever they have to do get the hydrogen (or similar substance) to power them. Hopefully they'll use biofuels to power the plants that get at the hydrogen to remove dependence on hydrocarbons.

Hydrogen will never be used as a fuel to burn. The amount of energy per unit volume is atrocious. There is no argument to be had. Biofuels = good for burning in combustion engines (e.g. - cars). Hydrogen = good for any application that can be powered by a battery.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I've just heard this argument for at least 5 years now. There are different applications for both. Neither can take the place of the other. There is no argument to be had.

First off, not saying this accusingly, just looking for clarification and throwing a thought out there. Second, sorry for chiming in late for something on the first page. ;)

unless nuclear energy is used to generate it. Then theres the problem of transportation and maintenance - all of which takes more energy and that energy is going to come from either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is much better here but there are long term wastes.


What exactly is wrong with using nuclear? We're already producing the waste. We're already producing the hydrogen as a byproduct... AND, if we actually upgraded our reactors to be on par with the ones the French have, we would have significantly less waste and more power being generated. Though it hurts to admit that the French do something better.

Add in the recycling of spent fuel rods (a "no-no" under current non-proliferation treaties) and the waste would be drastically reduced. Only a small portion of fissionable material is used each time a fuel rod is considered "spent" and has to be stored. Why not reuse it? If you reuse, you can forget Yucca.

Efficiency would go up, meaning less oil used and more hydrogen (and electricity) produced. The delivery systems could be migrated to hydrogen, so less oil used there. That'd be a much more efficient and expedient solution than the pipe dream of solar or wind power to create the hydrogen.

To Saturn:
I think you misunderstood me again. If a fuel cell can work just as well with hydrogen as alcohol, what would you put in it? Thats what I was asking. And I was saying, not hydrogen, because it takes extra stuff to produce it since its not naturally produced. And I also pointed out some benefits of hydrogen. Also I was not talking about burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.

To Labop:
If I had my way, everything would be nuclear and we would shoot all radioactive junk onto the moon or something - after all theres not a lot of it. Or shoot it into an asteroid and watch it glow green. Dont know anything about recycling fuel rods etc., but if that helps, even better.

Finally if they get the fusion project working - that will be even more efficient power (think Bastage posted a link above).

- Bodi

If a fuel cell can work just as well with hydrogen as alcohol, what would you put in it?

If this were true, there wouldn't be much of a case for hydrogen. I don't know all that much about alcohol based fuel cells. I do know that there's billions and billions of dollars being used for hydrogen research. Maybe they think it's easier to get at because it's a very simple process (hydrolysis) with a free and abundant source (water). Biofuels are derived from crops (corn and sugar cane are the two most popular) which require infrastructure change. I've never heard of largescale development of biofuels from trash or algae, but that may be something that comes in the future. So in short, who knows.

I just don't get why this comes up so often. Are you planning on getting involved in the development of either of these technologies? If not then you're just like every other person out there -- not thrilled about the idea of being dependent on foreign oil that pollutes the environment, but you really like driving your car so you deal with it. And you'll switch to biofuels when sufficient advancements have led it to be on par with the cost of a gallon of gas with the same availability.

If you want to do something about it, don't post on a forum about what you think will happen in 10 years, but go do something about it. Go buy a Prius or at least a ULEV vehicle (def. not an RX-8). Otherwise all you can do is wait in anticipation for something better to come along.

Still trying to figure out their mileage quote but the rest of the story is pretty cool.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060215/sc_nm/autos_mazda_hydrogen_dc

I ran 310 on my last tank and had at least a gallon left. That means--if I burned every ounce of gas on the highway, I might get 341 miles.

Wont happen for another 10 years. And even in 10 years time, we'll still be using gasoline predominantly.

Saw the first article over on Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/02/16/0034235.shtml) and then came to make sure we were on top of the game here. Of course you guys already found this stuff.

I just wanted to point out that the Slashdot discussion on the article turned into a rotary tutorial for a lot of people. Pretty cool to read through the comments. I'm sure there were several from this board representing over there.

Nice!

no you mean "radial" engine no i mean rotary piston no i mean its a wankel rotary in teh aircraft no mazda uses the rotary in a couple of cars no i mean rotary radial engine blah blah blah


my god there are alot of people there that dont know what they are talking about. i had to stop reading.

You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen quite easily...

my god there are alot of people there that dont know what they are talking about. i had to stop reading. Point in case:
You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen quite easily...
I am not a fan of nuclear ways of producing hydrogen or otherwise, the implications are so much greater than anyone realizes, the half-life of nuclear waste is longer than the barrels they are stored in and something like 500times longer than any human civilization has existed on the planet, think about that if you will. The only appropriate custodians for nuclear waste from an evolutionary perspective are alligators. We didn't even know what language to write on the door to the nuclear waste storage complex being constructed in Arizona (or was it Nevada) because they weren't sure if that language would be around for whenever the door would be opened again.

Far as shooting it to the moon, the last attempt made to launch something from here into orbit via really big cannon resulted in achieving a low orbit. Then the project leader ended up mysteriously dead, some call conspiracy theory, I can't remember his name.

Anyway, I don't believe that the moon is possible with any explosive compound we have available or otherwise. And can you imagine what would happen if something went wrong, gust of wind and barrel of green slime ends up in someone house.

case in point ^

Why dont we burn the alcohol produced by the bacteria to create the heat needed to produce the Hydrogen . . . or maybe there are companies out there that are attempting to produce Hydrogen cheaper without the use of fossil fuels. Since we as a country are just starting to pour money into that research, it is really only beginning on a large scale. I hope Mazda keeps developing the rotary to run on hydrogen, and increases the efficeincy enough to make it viable to use. There are other fuels that will work, however, hydrogen is the cleanest which is why there is a growing emphasis on research for it. Then we can have our beloved rotaries forever!

Point in case:

I am not a fan of nuclear ways of producing hydrogen or otherwise, the implications are so much greater than anyone realizes, the half-life of nuclear waste is longer than the barrels they are stored in and something like 500times longer than any human civilization has existed on the planet, think about that if you will. The only appropriate custodians for nuclear waste from an evolutionary perspective are alligators. We didn't even know what language to write on the door to the nuclear waste storage complex being constructed in Arizona (or was it Nevada) because they weren't sure if that language would be around for whenever the door would be opened again.

Far as shooting it to the moon, the last attempt made to launch something from here into orbit via really big cannon resulted in achieving a low orbit. Then the project leader ended up mysteriously dead, some call conspiracy theory, I can't remember his name.

Anyway, I don't believe that the moon is possible with any explosive compound we have available or otherwise. And can you imagine what would happen if something went wrong, gust of wind and barrel of green slime ends up in someone house.

Hence the reason why we should recycle the nuclear waste. We can even take weapons grade material and use it to "prime the pump" for new reactors. There's a really detailed article on Wired's website (to lazy to find it) that describes everything we could be doing right with nuclear power. From upgrading the plants to using different material which is more efficient, is reusable, and has a much shorter half-life. The US govt is just to stupid to do anything about it.

The new plants are more energy efficient and use less fuel in the first place. Our reactors are all around gen2-2.5. I think the french are around gen5. Upgrading the existing reactors would be a much better option than continually storing the stuff in Yucca Mountain (which is in Nevada Polak ;) ). Shooting waste to the moon is not only dangerous (rockets explode sometimes), it's irresponsible. It's the space equivalent of dumping trash in the oceans.

OK, got off the lazy horse, here's one article on Thorium http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68045,00.html And another on the aging of our nuclear plants. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57486,00.html

I couldn't find the one I was looking for, it was in their magazine last year, thought I'd seen it on the website. Guess not.

Pretty interesting although 62 miles ain't much! haha! I'd ues a tank a day!

Another thing to remember about the super-long half life for nuclear leftovers: that applies to the much less deadly stuff that's left over, radioactive particles that can't penetrate a piece of plastic. For the really deadly stuff, it decays much faster, the half life is more like 50 years. So yes, waste does technically stay radioactive for a gazillion years; but it's only deadly for a century or so.

Or at least that's the way I remember it.