BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
BPM Sport
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-29-2006, 08:43 AM   #23
ward
Major General
 
Drives: F
Join Date: May 2005
Location: T

Posts: 6,162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJJ3399
I could be really off here. Butů He who holds the gold makes the rules.

And the oil companies hold the gold.

I some how, don't think that the companies that profit from petroleum will give up their profits and big business that easily.

There are so many other alternatives that are not being investigated.

However, BMW is on the forefront of this technology.

The hydrogen automobile runs on water, emit water vapor at the tailpipe, has no pollution and has been under development for 30 years.

Hydrogen as a motor fuel is the answer to many environmental problems since there are no harmful emissions, no depleting of resources, no danger to the atmosphere, and it can be produced from a variety of renewable resources.

The BMW solution is a Clean Energy system where liquid hydrogen is produced from water using solar power, the hydrogen is dispensed from automated filling stations and it powers modified BMW 7 H2R production vehicle.

My Liberal 2 cents...
you can drive a h2 car, I'll keep on using gas

hydrogen only gives about half the energy per MASS compared to gas, plus it's a pain to store efficiently.

half the hp SWEET!
ward is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-29-2006, 09:45 AM   #24
DLJJ3399
Lack of charisma can be fatal...
 
DLJJ3399's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Posts: 365
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by ward
you can drive a h2 car, I'll keep on using gas

hydrogen only gives about half the energy per MASS compared to gas, plus it's a pain to store efficiently.

half the hp SWEET!
It's not half the HP. It will be the same or more.

Plus you can run the new production cars on both hydrogen and gasoline.

You have the option of what fuel source you want to use. The cars are coming whether you like it or not.

One more thought, diesel used to be considered slower too, until Audi came along and proved the racing world wrong with their Audi R10, which by the way, has been blowing the doors off the race competition with 50 trophies to show for their efforts.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Protect Me From What I Want...
_____________________________
DLJJ3399 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-29-2006, 06:50 PM   #25
ward
Major General
 
Drives: F
Join Date: May 2005
Location: T

Posts: 6,162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJJ3399
It's not half the HP. It will be the same or more.

Plus you can run the new production cars on both hydrogen and gasoline.

You have the option of what fuel source you want to use. The cars are coming whether you like it or not.

One more thought, diesel used to be considered slower too, until Audi came along and proved the racing world wrong with their Audi R10, which by the way, has been blowing the doors off the race competition with 50 trophies to show for their efforts.

I'm with you on diesel, I think that's a great direction to head I'd buy one in a heartbeat.


but hydrogen does not have the same amount of energy in it chemically that gas has. Remember the crazy streamlined hyrdrogen powered top speed car that BMW made a couple of years back, with the built V12. it was less than 300 hp. A gas engine would have been good for WAY more power.

it's really about half, I'm not bullsh tting

gas and hydrogen together in one car.... with 2 fuel tanks there'd be no room for stuff and my fat american butt!
ward is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-29-2006, 06:56 PM   #26
whippersnapper
Captain
 
whippersnapper's Avatar
 
Drives: people mad
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta

Posts: 972
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 BMW 325i  [0.00]
2006 BMW 325i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
BMW seem to think there is an opportunity there:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006..._display_.html
My comments stem from hearing a lecture from UC, convinced me that H2 is going nowhere mostly because there is nowhere to store the fuel that you need (great for buses though)
__________________
__________________________________________________ __________________
2006 BMW 325i, Jet Black, 6MT, ZSP, Black Leather, Aluminum, Power Seats, Logic 7
whippersnapper is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-29-2006, 08:48 PM   #27
ward
Major General
 
Drives: F
Join Date: May 2005
Location: T

Posts: 6,162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper
My comments stem from hearing a lecture from UC, convinced me that H2 is going nowhere mostly because there is nowhere to store the fuel that you need (great for buses though)
this is true, per mass it's got half the energy of gas (Mass, not volume, this means even liquid hydrogen isn't as good as gas for storing energy)
ward is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-06-2006, 06:33 PM   #28
yellowg555
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2006 325i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Torrance, CA

Posts: 396
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to yellowg555
I'd be scared of the unstableness of hydrogen more than anything else. I dunno if gasoline is equally as volatile or if hydrogen is more volatile, but all I have to do is think of the Hindenburg and I shudder with fear.

Why can't we invest billions of dollars into fusion power research? Congress should've never killed off that super collider project.
__________________
2006 Jet Black 325i, ZPP, ZSP, Steptronic Auto, Navi, Xenon
yellowg555 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-06-2006, 07:24 PM   #29
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBob
As a petroleum engineer, I'm here to tell you that you don't know diddly. There's a vast difference between what you know and what you think you know.
Bob, being a petroleum engineer does not mean you know it either. The same, being an Electrical Engineer with the Masters Degree and 12 years of experience in Wireless Communications does not qualify me as an expert in Power Electronics. Actually, does not mean I know shit about it.
Therefore, if you work with it, does not mean you know what is behind it...

We do depend on foreign oil, but more because we coose to than because we have to. There is an oil reserve burried in every corner of the USA, and an oil source everywhere around us. Do we really need to dig, and spill, and ruin more of this planet -- maybe. Otherwise, we will run out of the reserves soon, too.

However, would it be better to invest and figure something else before we use up all reserves -- definitely.

Do the oil hungry politicians (READ Chaney, Bush & Co.) want us to be independent of oil -- hell no.

But again, the FOX says it is all opposite from what I said, so...
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-10-2007, 01:02 PM   #30
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJJ3399 View Post
I could be really off here. Butů He who holds the gold makes the rules.
That idea is overly simplistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJJ3399 View Post
And the oil companies hold the gold.

I some how, don't think that the companies that profit from petroleum will give up their profits and big business that easily.

There are so many other alternatives that are not being investigated.

However, BMW is on the forefront of this technology.

The hydrogen automobile runs on water, emit water vapor at the tailpipe, has no pollution and has been under development for 30 years.

Hydrogen as a motor fuel is the answer to many environmental problems since there are no harmful emissions, no depleting of resources, no danger to the atmosphere, and it can be produced from a variety of renewable resources.

The BMW solution is a Clean Energy system where liquid hydrogen is produced from water using solar power, the hydrogen is dispensed from automated filling stations and it powers modified BMW 7 H2R production vehicle.

My Liberal 2 cents...
I am most definitely not a liberal, and I am most definitely in favor of hydrogen powered cars.

We also need to build some nuclear power plants. That is something we can learn from the leftist nation of France.

Being conservative doesn't mean that you close your eyes to reality. Hopefully conservatives have a greater grasp of reality.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-10-2007, 01:09 PM   #31
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowg555 View Post
I'd be scared of the unstableness of hydrogen more than anything else. I dunno if gasoline is equally as volatile or if hydrogen is more volatile, but all I have to do is think of the Hindenburg and I shudder with fear.
I don't know either. But I watched some documentary about the Hindenburg disaster. The conclusion was that the stuff they painted on the surface of the dirigible was extremely flammable. I don't remember what the stuff was, but when you hear it, you wonder what the Germans were thinking. The hydrogen apparently is not what caused the Hindenburg to burn so hot and with such a death toll.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-10-2007, 07:29 PM   #32
FirstClass
Brigadier General
 
Drives: 328xi
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Posts: 3,199
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowg555 View Post
I'd be scared of the unstableness of hydrogen more than anything else. I dunno if gasoline is equally as volatile or if hydrogen is more volatile, but all I have to do is think of the Hindenburg and I shudder with fear.
Gas is far more dangerous than hydrogen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
We also need to build some nuclear power plants.
+ 1 million
Everyone thinks of nuclear and thinks OH NOES RADIATION. The truth is that there has never been a remotely severe nuclear accident in the 50+ years nuclear power has been used here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
That is something we can learn from the socialist nation of France.
Fixed that for you
__________________
328xi Coupe, Montego Blue on Black with Alum, Step, Sport, Premium, CA, PDC, Cold Weather (Damn Pennsylvania winters)
Current Mods: Heavy right foot - Planned Mods: Lightweight right foot

Quote:
Originally Posted by jh valley View Post
shit, if i had that kind of money id buy a gtstreet for monday, an ascari a10 for tuesday, a DBS for wednesday and id just ride jessica alba the rest of the week.
FirstClass is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-25-2007, 06:46 AM   #33
Majikthese42
Philosopher-king
 
Majikthese42's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 E91
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: People's Republic of New Jersey

Posts: 1,113
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstClass View Post
The truth is that there has never been a remotely severe nuclear accident in the 50+ years nuclear power has been used here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Google "Idaho Falls Nuclear Reactor Accident"
On January 3, 1961, the first fatal nuclear reactor accident in the United States occurred at the NRTS. An experimental reactor called SL-1 (Stationary Low-Power Plant Number 1) was destroyed when a control rod was removed incorrectly leading to core meltdown and explosion. All three men working in the reactor were killed. Due to the extensive radioactive isotope contamination, all three had to be buried in lead coffins. The events are the subject of a book published in 2003, "Idaho Falls: The untold story of America's first nuclear accident."
Idaho Falls is generally used as the "textbook case" of how not to operate a nuclear reactor.

Like Douglas Adams said: "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

I like nuclear power as much as the next guy and would have no problem living next door to a reactor. But absent a program to remove all fools from the US population, it's only 99.9999% safe.
Majikthese42 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-27-2007, 01:39 AM   #34
Sick Speed
Speed
 
Sick Speed's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335i E92 Coupe
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parallel Universe

Posts: 407
iTrader: (2)

Think it will actually pass???
__________________
Sick Speed is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-27-2007, 11:02 PM   #35
pawarrant
SECDEF
 
pawarrant's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Melbourne Red 328xi Sport
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Posts: 759
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 328xi  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to pawarrant
UPDATE: Air Force seeks commercial airlines' support in push for synfuels

The Air Force is calling on the commercial airline industry for help in its effort to commercialize high carbon dioxide-emitting coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel refining, which military officials and other supporters say is needed to reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower fuel costs.

On March 8, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Air Force Energy Forum in Arlington, VA, that the service "will need support from the airlines" to increase the demand for synthetic fuel (synfuel) in the United States. "The buying power of the airlines, which constitutes approximately 85 percent of the market, will be important for the Air Force and the synfuel industry," he said in prepared remarks at the forum.

Wynne's call appears to acknowledge warnings by Defense Department officials last year that the military could not, by itself, help commercialize CTL technology.

DOD alone "cannot drive this marketplace" for the fuel, John Young, the department's director for defense research and engineering, said at a briefing last October, adding that at the moment "we're just not going to drive the market where the nation consumes 21 million barrels [of oil] a day. We can help jump-start companies but at the end of the day [DOD's daily consumption of] 340,000 barrels can't drive the marketplace."

The cost to build a synthetic fuel plant, such as one to convert coal to liquid fuel, is estimated to cost about $3 billion, with lawmakers from states with coal interests advocating legislative measures to ease industry's capitalization costs.

However, one energy policy observer who declined to be quoted by name for this article doubts that price-sensitive airlines will be willing to pay more for CTL and other synfuels than current market prices for oil and conventional fuels, arguing that low oil production costs in the Middle East will not likely allow CTL fuel prices to fall below the market price of petroleum anytime soon.

CTL fuels are especially controversial because many environmentalists say CTL refineries have higher carbon dioxide emissions than conventional refineries. While many CTL industry officials say they can capture and sequester CO2, DOD acquisition officials have suggested that sequestration could increase the cost of the fuel and are weighing how to factor costs imposed by future CO2 regulation into its synthetic fuel contracts.

Wynne conceded the "big issue" with CTL technology is sequestering the CO2 generated from the production of CTL fuels.

However, Wynne noted that commercializing the technology is essential if the Air Force is to meet its goal of using a domestically produced synthetic fuel blend to satisfy 50 percent of its aviation fuel needs for aircraft based in the United States by 2016. At the existing consumption rate, this would mean acquiring 325 million gallons of a 50/50 blend of synfuel and JP-8, he added.

The Air Force is accelerating its development and use of alternative fuels, Wynne said, stressing the current volatility of oil prices and the desire to have stable prices and "an assured source of fuel." The service is particularly interested in synthetic aviation fuel derived from coal. It is also eying aviation fuels derived from natural gas, oil shale, tar sands and biomass.

This goal does not apply to fuel consumed by the Air Force in its overseas operations. About 60 percent of the Air Force's aviation fuel consumption is in the United States, while the other 40 percent is overseas, according to an Air Force official. Overseas operations buy their fuel locally; transporting fuel from the United States to overseas operations would otherwise be "ridiculously high," the official adds.

Wynne said that in looking to lower reliance on imported oil, the Air Force's first step is to make its vehicles, aircraft and facilities more energy efficient. "Alternative and renewable fuels provide options that we are only beginning to discover," he said, noting that his service is the top purchaser of renewable energy in the country.

The Federal Aviation Administration is undertaking efforts to work with the airlines and airports to quickly test and certify synfuels, according to Wynne.

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey spoke to the forum following Wynne, calling the goal of 50 percent synfuel by 2016 "about as daring as it gets." But, Blakey added, "I want all of you to know that the commercial side will be right there with you" with respect to alternative fuels.

Critics say DOD's approach of encouraging development of fuel from coal, a non-renewable energy source, is misguided. Instead, DOD should focus on lowering demand, according to the energy policy observer.

With CTL, "no matter how you cut it," it will increase carbon intensity, the observer says. This source says the "low hanging fruit" in energy savings is in getting greater energy efficiencies in mobile weapon platforms -- something the source says DOD has not focused on.

In addition to encouraging development of CTL technologies, the Air Force may turn to a biomass-synthetic fuel mix to produce a cleaner fuel and help cut CO2 emissions. The Air Force is working with the Energy Department "to find the right mix of biomass and coal to reduce CO2 emissions starting with the feedstock," Wynne said.

While the Air Force is exploring CTL fuel, Wynne said "there is no 'silver bullet,'" noting it will take combined resources to meet energy needs. While a pure biomass product currently lacks the British thermal unit concentration needed for jet engine use, the Air Force is "working with DOE to study a mixed feed stock of biomass and coal that may result in a jet-quality fuel," Wynne said.

Such a fuel could yield political backing from farm and coal states. It "has the potential to unite the farm states and coal states," the secretary said.

Bush administration officials have labeled the effort to move away from a dependency on foreign oil a matter of national security. Wynne noted various examples of potential vulnerabilities regarding the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But, he said, "I will leave the politics of oil and its impact on our economy to the White House and State Department. However, when it comes to defending our nation and the fuel required, we must offer the nation a hedge against a future that some discount, but none can take off the table. We must look for domestic sources of alternative fuels. We must hedge against being dependent upon imported oil."

Currently, the top country from which the United States imports its oil is Canada, followed by Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Venezuela, according to Wynne.

The volatile prices of oil in recent years have forced the Air Force to request from Congress supplemental appropriations to pay for increases in fuel costs, he said.

Fuel is about 80 percent of the Air Force's costs, according to the Air Force source. In fiscal year 2006, the Air Force spent $6.6 billion on aviation fuel, $1.6 billion more than it had budgeted for this item. In FY05, it was $1.4 billion over budget in aviation fuel costs.

"We could have paid for a supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense," Wynne said. "Maybe then we could have a predictable cost for fuel."

The Air Force plans to finish its testing and certification of synthetic fuels for aircraft by 2010, according to Wynne. The Air Force source notes too that synfuel production plants are being built overseas, so once aircraft are certified, the service could potentially fuel with synfuel overseas before the fuel is even available in the United States.

In addressing aviation fuel demand, the Air Force is replacing inefficient engines in aircraft. For instance, it has replaced engines in its KC-135Rs and is preparing for new engines in its C-5 fleet, Wynne said. Airframe changes also are expected to produce fuel efficiencies, he said.

Further, the service is looking at lowering loading weight in aircraft and to optimize air routing to save in fuel costs, the secretary said.

From Inside the Pentagon and USAF
__________________
2013 328xi Melbourne Red Metallic/Black Dakota Leather/Red Highlights Anthracite Wood Trim
Retired:2009 328ixi Sedan Montego Blue Metallic/Saddle Brown Dakota Leather Aluminum Trim
Retired: 2006 325xi Monaco Blue Metallic/Gray Dakota Leather Dark Burl Walnut Wood Trim
Retired: 2003 325xi Steel Grey Metallic/Black Leather Wood Trim

pawarrant is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-05-2007, 07:16 AM   #36
lyndon_h
Lieutenant Colonel
 
lyndon_h's Avatar
 
Drives: e90
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Madagascar

Posts: 1,920
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
....
Do the oil hungry politicians (READ Chaney, Bush & Co.) want us to be independent of oil -- hell no.
BINGO!!!
We have a winner. The politians that and oil shareholders are the reasons why we dont have alternative forms of energy. Alternative energy, especially for autos, would decentralize the power source. If hydrogen could be used for auto fuel, it means that the countries with the most money and biggest militaries could not "control" the ones that own the oil as easily. The ones with the oil(fuel) want to make that no one else has access. Dont believe me? Try to buy mineral rights to your own land, if you dont already have it. Its virtually impossible, at least here in Texas.
lyndon_h is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST