Mazda to develop rotary hydrogen car
08-13-2003 | 03:35 AM
#1
Thread Starter
RE member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
From: Aurora, CO
Mazda to develop rotary hydrogen car
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_50995.asp
AFP - Mazda aims to develop a rotary-engine car powered by hydrogen, which would be far less costly than fuel-cell cars and more environment-friendly than gasoline vehicles.
Japan's fifth-ranked automaker will unveil a prototype car at the Tokyo Motor Show in October, aiming to put it on the market in some five years, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports.
The car, with the roughly 150-horsepower engine and based on the RX-8 sports car, would be able to run about 200km on a single tank of fuel, the economic daily said.
Rotary engines are less fuel-efficient than internal combustion engines when running on gasoline, but are expected to be more efficient than standard engines when powered by hydrogen, it said.
It would cost Y3-4 million ($A38,000-51,000) to build a car mounted with the hydrogen-powered rotary engine, it said.
The sum is significantly lower than Y200-300 million ($A2.6-$A3.8 million) needed to produce a newly developed fuel-cell car, as the hydrogen rotary-engine car is able to utilise parts of gasoline cars, it said.
Mazda officials were not immediately available for comment.
AFP - Mazda aims to develop a rotary-engine car powered by hydrogen, which would be far less costly than fuel-cell cars and more environment-friendly than gasoline vehicles.
Japan's fifth-ranked automaker will unveil a prototype car at the Tokyo Motor Show in October, aiming to put it on the market in some five years, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports.
The car, with the roughly 150-horsepower engine and based on the RX-8 sports car, would be able to run about 200km on a single tank of fuel, the economic daily said.
Rotary engines are less fuel-efficient than internal combustion engines when running on gasoline, but are expected to be more efficient than standard engines when powered by hydrogen, it said.
It would cost Y3-4 million ($A38,000-51,000) to build a car mounted with the hydrogen-powered rotary engine, it said.
The sum is significantly lower than Y200-300 million ($A2.6-$A3.8 million) needed to produce a newly developed fuel-cell car, as the hydrogen rotary-engine car is able to utilise parts of gasoline cars, it said.
Mazda officials were not immediately available for comment.
08-13-2003 | 03:14 PM
#4
Y'llNotSeeNothinLikeIt
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: CT
Originally posted by artmt
What's the advantage of hydrogen fuel?
What's the advantage of hydrogen fuel?
It's exhaust is not toxic.
It's the most abundant element in the universe.
I could go on...
08-13-2003 | 03:31 PM
#5
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
I agree with your first point, but I am not sure about the rest.
The gasoline exhaust is indeed toxic, but it is on the outside. You don' breath it.
On Earth hydrogen is not abandant. It must be produced via a process which in most places involves burning large quantities of coal.
The gasoline exhaust is indeed toxic, but it is on the outside. You don' breath it.
On Earth hydrogen is not abandant. It must be produced via a process which in most places involves burning large quantities of coal.
08-13-2003 | 03:47 PM
#8
Y'llNotSeeNothinLikeIt
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: CT
There are large reserves in a lot of places including Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, but we get most of what we use from Saudi Arabia. Maybe Iraq will help, but most of what we get comes from areas that are sesnitive environmentally or politically.
We produce hydrogen with electricity, but that electricity doesn't have to come from coal (or oil or NG) ... it can come from soalr cells or windmills too. There are other method, too, that use biomass.
> You don't breath it
Ever been to LA or Houston? When you burn Hydrogen you get water.
We produce hydrogen with electricity, but that electricity doesn't have to come from coal (or oil or NG) ... it can come from soalr cells or windmills too. There are other method, too, that use biomass.
> You don't breath it
Ever been to LA or Houston? When you burn Hydrogen you get water.
08-13-2003 | 04:06 PM
#9
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
We produce hydrogen with electricity, but that electricity doesn't have to come from coal (or oil or NG) ... it can come from soalr cells or windmills too. There are other method, too, that use biomass.
Note that the same argument applies to your first point - we don't have to buy oil in Saudi Arabia.
Ever been to LA or Houston?
08-13-2003 | 04:13 PM
#10
Y'llNotSeeNothinLikeIt
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: CT
Originally posted by artmt
What you are saying is that hydrogen fuel would have had this particular advantage if we were generating power by other means than we do now.
Note that the same argument applies to your first point - we don't have to buy oil in Saudi Arabia.
I have. Bad air quality, partially due to power stations.
What you are saying is that hydrogen fuel would have had this particular advantage if we were generating power by other means than we do now.
Note that the same argument applies to your first point - we don't have to buy oil in Saudi Arabia.
I have. Bad air quality, partially due to power stations.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Alaska, Siberia, Uzbekistan ... someone's gonna die. (even if it is a Caribou).
partially ... but mostly cars. Clean it all up.
08-13-2003 | 04:30 PM
#12
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
What I'm saying is that Hydrogen is part of a cleaner comprehensive energy strategy.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Alaska, Siberia, Uzbekistan ... someone's gonna die. (even if it is a Caribou).
partially ... but mostly cars.
In any case I am sure in some areas it is mostly power stations.
Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
08-13-2003 | 04:30 PM
#13
Registered
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,277
Likes: 7
From: Around
Originally posted by ProtoConVert
Wait... what are the differences between hydrogen combustion and gas combustion such that a rotary is more efficient?
Wait... what are the differences between hydrogen combustion and gas combustion such that a rotary is more efficient?
Check here: http://www.monito.com/wankel/hydrogen.html
Last edited by neit_jnf; 08-13-2003 at 04:42 PM.
08-13-2003 | 06:26 PM
#14
Y'llNotSeeNothinLikeIt
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: CT
>In that case within the framework of your strategy hydrogen power is way premature.
Premature? First, Solar, Wind and other alternatives are already being developed. Second,
>Gasoline or hydrogen someone somewhere is certainly going to die.
How so with hydrogen?
>Could be, but how do you know that?
Whaddo I look like an encyclopedia? ;-)
>In any case I am sure in some areas it is mostly power stations.
It may not be happening under Bush, but it's easier to keep a few power plants clean than millions of cars.
>Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
Gasoline powers cars. Coal powers electricity. Replace gas and you've got half of it solved.
Premature? First, Solar, Wind and other alternatives are already being developed. Second,
>Gasoline or hydrogen someone somewhere is certainly going to die.
How so with hydrogen?
>Could be, but how do you know that?
Whaddo I look like an encyclopedia? ;-)
>In any case I am sure in some areas it is mostly power stations.
It may not be happening under Bush, but it's easier to keep a few power plants clean than millions of cars.
>Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
Gasoline powers cars. Coal powers electricity. Replace gas and you've got half of it solved.
08-13-2003 | 09:36 PM
#18
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
they are also working on a hybrid engine. these 2 versions are talked about in the rx-8 book. my feeling is they will combine the electric hybrid version with the hydrogen version to create much more than the 150 hp stated. when you see it for the first time remember that i predicted it! 
08-13-2003 | 09:38 PM
#19
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
Originally posted by RodsterinFL
Mazda to design Rotary based on Dilithium Crystals and anti-matter!!
Mazda to design Rotary based on Dilithium Crystals and anti-matter!!
:p
08-14-2003 | 01:17 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
>>In that case within the framework of your strategy hydrogen power is way premature.
>Premature? First, Solar, Wind and other alternatives are already being developed.
But to satisfy your objective (less emissions) "already being developed" is not enough. You need most power to be generated by those means. This is not what is happening now and not likely to happen in the near future. When and if it does happen, given the rate of technological progress, hydrogen may turn out to be a poor choice.
Hence, hydrogen cars are premature.
>>Gasoline or hydrogen someone somewhere is certainly going to die.
>How so with hydrogen?
I was pointing out that you are not making a clear connection between gasoline and mortality.
>>Could be, but how do you know that?
>Whaddo I look like an encyclopedia? ;-)
Nothing against you personally, but in my experience people who tend to sympathize with your position often hold what appear to be religious beliefs that they present as scientific facts. This is why I asked whether you know your statement to be true.
>>Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
>Gasoline powers cars. Coal powers electricity. Replace gas and you've got half of it solved.
No you don't if to replace gas you need to burn more coal.
>Premature? First, Solar, Wind and other alternatives are already being developed.
But to satisfy your objective (less emissions) "already being developed" is not enough. You need most power to be generated by those means. This is not what is happening now and not likely to happen in the near future. When and if it does happen, given the rate of technological progress, hydrogen may turn out to be a poor choice.
Hence, hydrogen cars are premature.
>>Gasoline or hydrogen someone somewhere is certainly going to die.
>How so with hydrogen?
I was pointing out that you are not making a clear connection between gasoline and mortality.
>>Could be, but how do you know that?
>Whaddo I look like an encyclopedia? ;-)
Nothing against you personally, but in my experience people who tend to sympathize with your position often hold what appear to be religious beliefs that they present as scientific facts. This is why I asked whether you know your statement to be true.
>>Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
>Gasoline powers cars. Coal powers electricity. Replace gas and you've got half of it solved.
No you don't if to replace gas you need to burn more coal.
08-14-2003 | 02:48 PM
#21
Y'llNotSeeNothinLikeIt
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: CT
>]>>In that case within the framework of your strategy hydrogen power is way premature.
>>Premature? First, Solar, Wind and other alternatives are already being developed.
>But to satisfy your objective (less emissions) "already being developed" is not enough. You need most power to be generated by those means. This is not what is happening now and not likely to happen in the near future. When and if it does happen, given the rate of technological progress, hydrogen may turn out to be a poor choice.
Hence, hydrogen cars are premature.
1. The goal is not only low emissions, but "national security" as well.
2. How can you go from "none" to "most" without starting with "some"?
>>>Gasoline or hydrogen someone somewhere is certainly going to die.
>>How so with hydrogen?
>I was pointing out that you are not making a clear connection between gasoline and mortality.
OK, to clarify, Oil < Saudi Arabia < Sept 11
or: Oil < Alaska/Spain < dead Animals
>>>Could be, but how do you know that?
>>Whaddo I look like an encyclopedia? ;-)
>Nothing against you personally, but in my experience people who tend to sympathize with your position often hold what appear to be religious beliefs that they present as scientific facts. This is why I asked whether you know your statement to be true.
OK, don't argue about prejudices, stick to the facts. I remember hearing about most of the pollution in LA being from cars. I don't know about other areas, and I don't know where I heard that, but it's beside the point. When cars emit no CO, the air will be more clean.
Cars are not a *small* part of the problem, but I wouldn't be surprised with the deals the Bush Administration has made with Power Companies, that generators now pollute more than cars. That can and should change.
>>>Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
>>Gasoline powers cars. Coal powers electricity. Replace gas and you've got half of it solved.
>No you don't if to replace gas you need to burn more coal.
OK. That may be true in some circumstances, but not all, and it doesn't need to be in any. In California they bur Natural Gas for power, not coal. They also have a lot of Solar and Wind. My strategy would be to replace gasoline with hydrogen. It would take many many years. Meanwhile, put scrubbers on smokestacks of coal plants, and develop alternative (cleaner) energy. Yes more electricity from power plants would be required to make hydrogen, but since we also get hydrogen from other sources (industrial processes, mentioned ealier), and because it's easier to control a few power plants than millions of cars, net would be less pollution.
What's the alternative? Do Nothing. Burn oil, gas, coal, fossil fuels. Stay dependent on people who want to hurt us. A few more oil spills. Air gets harder to breathe. And just ask those of us in Europe about global warming.
We gotta start somewhere and we gotta start soon.
---
Ran across this http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/
which reminded me of this thread. It contains air polution figures for 1999. In Texas, "Mobile" sources of air pollution contributed double what "point" sources did (point sources include not only power plants, but factories and refineries as well). In CT and CA mobile sources were 10 times point sources.
I don't want to be accused of being "religious" with my facts. I was pre-occupied at the time (my 8 came in) so I didn't check. But the upshot is moving to Hydrogen cars will drastically cut air pollution, and I get to drive an RX8 at the same time!
>>Premature? First, Solar, Wind and other alternatives are already being developed.
>But to satisfy your objective (less emissions) "already being developed" is not enough. You need most power to be generated by those means. This is not what is happening now and not likely to happen in the near future. When and if it does happen, given the rate of technological progress, hydrogen may turn out to be a poor choice.
Hence, hydrogen cars are premature.
1. The goal is not only low emissions, but "national security" as well.
2. How can you go from "none" to "most" without starting with "some"?
>>>Gasoline or hydrogen someone somewhere is certainly going to die.
>>How so with hydrogen?
>I was pointing out that you are not making a clear connection between gasoline and mortality.
OK, to clarify, Oil < Saudi Arabia < Sept 11
or: Oil < Alaska/Spain < dead Animals
>>>Could be, but how do you know that?
>>Whaddo I look like an encyclopedia? ;-)
>Nothing against you personally, but in my experience people who tend to sympathize with your position often hold what appear to be religious beliefs that they present as scientific facts. This is why I asked whether you know your statement to be true.
OK, don't argue about prejudices, stick to the facts. I remember hearing about most of the pollution in LA being from cars. I don't know about other areas, and I don't know where I heard that, but it's beside the point. When cars emit no CO, the air will be more clean.
Cars are not a *small* part of the problem, but I wouldn't be surprised with the deals the Bush Administration has made with Power Companies, that generators now pollute more than cars. That can and should change.
>>>Given today's circumstances the real choice is between burning coal or burning gasoline.
>>Gasoline powers cars. Coal powers electricity. Replace gas and you've got half of it solved.
>No you don't if to replace gas you need to burn more coal.
OK. That may be true in some circumstances, but not all, and it doesn't need to be in any. In California they bur Natural Gas for power, not coal. They also have a lot of Solar and Wind. My strategy would be to replace gasoline with hydrogen. It would take many many years. Meanwhile, put scrubbers on smokestacks of coal plants, and develop alternative (cleaner) energy. Yes more electricity from power plants would be required to make hydrogen, but since we also get hydrogen from other sources (industrial processes, mentioned ealier), and because it's easier to control a few power plants than millions of cars, net would be less pollution.
What's the alternative? Do Nothing. Burn oil, gas, coal, fossil fuels. Stay dependent on people who want to hurt us. A few more oil spills. Air gets harder to breathe. And just ask those of us in Europe about global warming.
We gotta start somewhere and we gotta start soon.
---
Ran across this http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/
which reminded me of this thread. It contains air polution figures for 1999. In Texas, "Mobile" sources of air pollution contributed double what "point" sources did (point sources include not only power plants, but factories and refineries as well). In CT and CA mobile sources were 10 times point sources.
I don't want to be accused of being "religious" with my facts. I was pre-occupied at the time (my 8 came in) so I didn't check. But the upshot is moving to Hydrogen cars will drastically cut air pollution, and I get to drive an RX8 at the same time!
Last edited by eskimo; 08-18-2003 at 11:20 AM.
08-14-2003 | 06:31 PM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Texas
First If every building had solar panels on it property as on it roof. Then the power plants could use water and to make hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abuntant thing around and it is in almost everything.When we get to hydrogen cars can have rotary engines everywhere and since buring hydrogen makes water is is 2 parts hydrogen and one oxygen it can be use to make more hydrogen and there for we can be indepented of need from any other country. We have bodys of water everywhere. Also when the water get together you get rain. Hydrogen is the way of the future, and rotarys too.
08-14-2003 | 07:40 PM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: Dallas Texas
Re: Mazda to develop rotary hydrogen car
Originally posted by Buger
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_50995.asp
AFP - Mazda aims to develop a rotary-engine car powered by hydrogen, which would be far less costly than fuel-cell cars and more environment-friendly than gasoline vehicles.
Japan's fifth-ranked automaker will unveil a prototype car at the Tokyo Motor Show in October, aiming to put it on the market in some five years, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_50995.asp
AFP - Mazda aims to develop a rotary-engine car powered by hydrogen, which would be far less costly than fuel-cell cars and more environment-friendly than gasoline vehicles.
Japan's fifth-ranked automaker will unveil a prototype car at the Tokyo Motor Show in October, aiming to put it on the market in some five years, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports.
Looks like it's going to be an interesting Tokyo Motor Show in October --- especially if Mazda's going to also show of the new RX-7 ...
I heard a rumor that Boowana and Sputnik will team up again to bring us info and pics on the RX-7 debut
:D
I'm going to be in the market around 05-06 for a new car, maybe it will be something that will be shown in October ... long as it's a fastback and also a hatchback and has a back seat with a nice size trunk (able to hold at leat 3 golf bags with a spare tire too!?
Last edited by bwayout; 08-14-2003 at 07:46 PM.
10-05-2003 | 01:54 AM
#24
Thread Starter
RE member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
From: Aurora, CO
Hi Bwayout,
Things are going well for the new daddy.
Now might be a good time to revive this (surprisingly heated) thread since the Toyko auto show is coming up soon.
Hydrogen has long been looked at as the "perfect" fuel for the environment. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the combustion of hydrogen would only leave water as it's byproduct. As also mentioned earlier in this thread, the production of hydrogen also causes environmental problems. (Solar is clean but doesn't produce enough electricity to "make" significant amounts of hydrogen through electrolysis)
The switch to a "hydrogen economy" will take some time (if it happens at all) but the wheels are turning slowly. The most recent popular science magazine has an article that mentions how Congress may start funding a 1.1 billion project to build a new breed of nuclear reactor.
One of the requirements for the new design is that it must be able to support commercial scale production of hydrogen by 2015. The VHTR (Very High Temperature Reactor) looks like the leading design.
"As its name implies, the VHTR is designed to generate intense heat: cooled by helium, it would operate at 1,000°C—twice as hot as today's water-cooled reactors. Since extreme heat is required to snap the chemical bonds of various compounds and release hydrogen, the reactor is ideal for producing the new fuel, says Finis Southworth, the DOE's VHTR expert.
In addition to turning turbines to make electricity, the intense heat generated by the VHTR reactor will also power an adjacent hydrogen plant, where one of two chemical processes will produce 10 tons of hydrogen an hour, Southworth says. (The demo plant will kick out a modest 2 tons.) And the process yields hydrogen without producing greenhouse gases—the drawback of today's hydrogen plants, which create high temperatures by burning fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas.
Another selling point: Thanks to the configuration of its uranium fuel, the VHTR would be meltdown-proof, claims nuclear engineer Andrew Kadak of MIT. In today's reactors, the uranium is stuffed into hollow rods of zirconium, a metal that catches fire if the coolant is somehow drained off, resulting in a potentially disastrous radiation release, like the one at Three Mile Island. In the VHTR, the uranium will be either in the form of "pebble beds"—stacked pellets of uranium covered in graphite—or "prismatic blocks"—uranium encased in 3-foot-high, 2-foot-wide hexagons of graphite.
Using graphite instead of zirconium to cradle the uranium means a Three Mile Island–style disaster is impossible; instead of combusting in the absence of coolant, graphite allows nuclear heat to radiate away faster than it is produced. This "passive" safety system requires no frantic scrambling by personnel to save the day, making the VHTR more difficult to sabotage."
Brian
Things are going well for the new daddy.
Now might be a good time to revive this (surprisingly heated) thread since the Toyko auto show is coming up soon.
Hydrogen has long been looked at as the "perfect" fuel for the environment. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the combustion of hydrogen would only leave water as it's byproduct. As also mentioned earlier in this thread, the production of hydrogen also causes environmental problems. (Solar is clean but doesn't produce enough electricity to "make" significant amounts of hydrogen through electrolysis)
The switch to a "hydrogen economy" will take some time (if it happens at all) but the wheels are turning slowly. The most recent popular science magazine has an article that mentions how Congress may start funding a 1.1 billion project to build a new breed of nuclear reactor.
One of the requirements for the new design is that it must be able to support commercial scale production of hydrogen by 2015. The VHTR (Very High Temperature Reactor) looks like the leading design.
"As its name implies, the VHTR is designed to generate intense heat: cooled by helium, it would operate at 1,000°C—twice as hot as today's water-cooled reactors. Since extreme heat is required to snap the chemical bonds of various compounds and release hydrogen, the reactor is ideal for producing the new fuel, says Finis Southworth, the DOE's VHTR expert.
In addition to turning turbines to make electricity, the intense heat generated by the VHTR reactor will also power an adjacent hydrogen plant, where one of two chemical processes will produce 10 tons of hydrogen an hour, Southworth says. (The demo plant will kick out a modest 2 tons.) And the process yields hydrogen without producing greenhouse gases—the drawback of today's hydrogen plants, which create high temperatures by burning fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas.
Another selling point: Thanks to the configuration of its uranium fuel, the VHTR would be meltdown-proof, claims nuclear engineer Andrew Kadak of MIT. In today's reactors, the uranium is stuffed into hollow rods of zirconium, a metal that catches fire if the coolant is somehow drained off, resulting in a potentially disastrous radiation release, like the one at Three Mile Island. In the VHTR, the uranium will be either in the form of "pebble beds"—stacked pellets of uranium covered in graphite—or "prismatic blocks"—uranium encased in 3-foot-high, 2-foot-wide hexagons of graphite.
Using graphite instead of zirconium to cradle the uranium means a Three Mile Island–style disaster is impossible; instead of combusting in the absence of coolant, graphite allows nuclear heat to radiate away faster than it is produced. This "passive" safety system requires no frantic scrambling by personnel to save the day, making the VHTR more difficult to sabotage."
Brian
Last edited by Buger; 10-05-2003 at 01:57 AM.
