BMW Pilot iX5 EV No Batteries, Recharges/H2 Fuels in less than 4 minutes

Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
17,634
Location
North Carolina Coast
Last edited:
300+ mile range is legit!!! If true and not marketing :poop:. Interesting to see if they can prove the naysayers wrong.
 
300+ mile range is legit!!! If true and not marketing :poop:. Interesting to see if they can prove the naysayers wrong.
Well, we all know current battery technology is not going to be the future, same as lead acid batteries weren't the future in EVs 100 years ago.
The real estate exists for h2 in current gas stations but the desire will not happen for a while as gasoline is still viable but 20 years from now?
Either some revolutionary electrical storage system or h2 storage system or both.
 
The engineering is legit - the infrastructure behind it? Not quite so much. Not yet.

Fuel cells are heavy and expensive, though with zero moving parts, they should be very durable.

But, and this is a big but, at the moment, hydrogen is a fossil fuel. Nearly all commercial hydrogen is derived from natural gas. Electrolysis, the great green dream, is incredibly expensive.

Worse, gaseous hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, and when transporting liquid hydrogen, there is some boil off and leak to the atmosphere.

Most road vehicle designs are using gaseous hydrogen, at 5,000 or 10,000 PSI, in order to cram enough on the tank to get somewhere. This requires careful crash protection for the tank, and complex refueling apparatus.

It’s far faster than recharging a battery, but it’s nowhere near as simple, or as safe, as transferring liquid fuel.

Ultimately, the infrastructure has a long way to go before hydrogen does anything positive for the environment.
 
....

Ultimately, the infrastructure has a long way to go before hydrogen does anything positive for the environment.
(Just discussing)I could care less about the environment when discussing EV vehicles. That is really for a different thread because all technologies affect the environment. It's a subject for a different thread any product pushed for the environment is an agenda driven manifestation of half truths and fantasy.
I dont want to mess the thread up talking about this though yeah. Im guilty but I wonder how many EV manufacturers post things like this when talking up battery operated EVs. It's no secret that I in my posts in here that I will never settle for my main vehicle to go backwards in time that will take more than 4 minutes to re-charge or refill a fuel source. That to me is crazy and for the industry to promote batteries as earth friendly is a joke. (keep in mind just discussing:)) We are not as advanced as we think we are and to call lithium battery operated EVs as earth friendly is crazy to me but it is the future, for now for people who are not inconvenienced but gasoline is going no where fast until a replacement is found for it.
Unrelated to the story below, lithium mining needs to move 500,000 pounds of earth to make one battery only to be recharged by mostly fossil burning electric plants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bleak-photos-show-reality-cobalt-033300215.html
 
Last edited:
I really love the idea of hydrogen fuel cell cars. The tech is awesome. Like mentioned, fueling times are similar to gas. Hydrogen is just so much more expensive than gas though. People are going battery electric for cost savings on top of smoother and quiet operation. If they could refine the hydrogen process to be cheaper than gas I could see going that route. The problem is when the infrastructure isn't there at least the battery electric can plug into any outlet.

I just looked and the closest hydrogen station is 919 miles away in Canada. Next closest is 1,600+ miles away in California. I really thought there would be more stations than that. Looks like there's less than 20 on the whole continent and almost all of those are in California. Maybe it would be possible to have one there?
 
Fuel cell is THE only viable long-term solution for EV.
Plug-ins are a stop-gap while the market evolves.
Toyoda ex CEO of Toyota said so and paid a political price.
 
Fuel cell is THE only viable long-term solution for EV.
Plug-ins are a stop-gap while the market evolves.
Toyoda ex CEO of Toyota said so and paid a political price.
I don't think that's true at all. The infrastructure challenges are infinitely more difficult than charging and it's more than twice the cost of gasoline right now. That's what kills it. Electric has only really done well because it's cheaper to operate. That's a huge uphill battle to sell it to people. I'm interested in it and as I said above the closest station to me is over 900 miles away. At least battery electric has the ability to charge in the garage even if there's no stations in driving distance(I would not recommend a battery electric if this is anyone's actual situation).

Show me viable. More expensive energy costs and it actually isn't possible to drive it across the country with current or even likely the infrastructure of 5+ years from now. I would love to see it do well, but if electric isn't ready for prime time(which I don't agree with), hydrogen didn't even make it in the room to pitch the pilot just yet. All I know is I'm sick of sucking fumes of all the idiots that leave their cars running while fueling at this time of year. Makes me not want to even start my VW.
 
Fuel cell is THE only viable long-term solution for EV.
Plug-ins are a stop-gap while the market evolves.
Toyoda ex CEO of Toyota said so and paid a political price.
Ignoring for the moment that almost all hydrogen is derived from methane reformation as @Astro14 alluded to, it has serious challenges with storage, transport and consumer-facing safety.

Presently, HFC's are more emissions intense than MFC's. But MCF's don't have the "green" angle associated with them. Kind of like how we are now construing shipping lumber halfway across the world to burn in place of coal as "green" (biomass).
 
The engineering is legit - the infrastructure behind it? Not quite so much. Not yet.

Fuel cells are heavy and expensive, though with zero moving parts, they should be very durable.

But, and this is a big but, at the moment, hydrogen is a fossil fuel. Nearly all commercial hydrogen is derived from natural gas. Electrolysis, the great green dream, is incredibly expensive.

Worse, gaseous hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, and when transporting liquid hydrogen, there is some boil off and leak to the atmosphere.

Most road vehicle designs are using gaseous hydrogen, at 5,000 or 10,000 PSI, in order to cram enough on the tank to get somewhere. This requires careful crash protection for the tank, and complex refueling apparatus.

It’s far faster than recharging a battery, but it’s nowhere near as simple, or as safe, as transferring liquid fuel.

Ultimately, the infrastructure has a long way to go before hydrogen does anything positive for the environment.
The greenies don't mention the extensive energy required to produce h2, the extremely low energy content, and that 99% of the hydrogen on earth is bonded to other molecules. We don't live on Jupiter where from what I can tell about 50% of the atmosphere is free standing hydrogen. It is a giant gas ball after all.
 
When a fuel returns less energy than what it takes to manufacture it, transport it, store it, sell it, it's a losing proposition ... in a free market.
 
I don't think that's true at all. The infrastructure challenges are infinitely more difficult than charging and it's more than twice the cost of gasoline right now. That's what kills it. Electric has only really done well because it's cheaper to operate. That's a huge uphill battle to sell it to people. I'm interested in it and as I said above the closest station to me is over 900 miles away. At least battery electric has the ability to charge in the garage even if there's no stations in driving distance(I would not recommend a battery electric if this is anyone's actual situation).

Show me viable. More expensive energy costs and it actually isn't possible to drive it across the country with current or even likely the infrastructure of 5+ years from now. I would love to see it do well, but if electric isn't ready for prime time(which I don't agree with), hydrogen didn't even make it in the room to pitch the pilot just yet. All I know is I'm sick of sucking fumes of all the idiots that leave their cars running while fueling at this time of year. Makes me not want to even start my VW.
(just discussing)
We all have our thoughts on things and I respect yours but Im on the other side of the fence.
Your post is highly speculative to a degree that is too much to discuss which if we were neighbors I could discuss with anyone in a respectful manner.
1. How are infrastructure changes more difficult then charging? Charging is why the current generation of EVs will never carry more registrations than gasoline. We enjoy a higher standard of living in the USA with a vast road network. Americans will always buy convenience and I suggest it's an all out fantasy if anyone thinks a family with a few cars in it are going to rotate cars around to charge them until the day a car can be charged in the same amount of time currently that it takes to fill a gas tank with gas.

2. Second fantasy is the cost involved. To say electric is cheaper if flat out wrong, yes maybe now but let me keep this short with one example. There currently arent any EVs on the road except for a TINY percent. If that much.
Last summer California was running out of electricity, they asked EV owners to hold off charging at certain times. Well, ok, so do the math.
There are only 600,000 EV cars on the road in California out of 20,000,000 (twenty million) vehicles.
Ummmmm ... so ... what happens when there is even only 500% more EVs on the road totaling 3,000,000 out of 20,000,000? One can not honestly think major upgrades to the electric system and power plants are not going to need a HUGE influx of cash to bring the system up to date can they?
Does anyone on planet earth even think CA can support 3,000,000 EVs out of 20,000,000 vehicles today when they cant support 600,000?
So how would we even get to a 30% EV saturation rate (which would mean 6,000,000 EVs) even if people would put up with the major inconvenience of recharging.
Summary = California today doesnt even have enough power to recharge 6,000,000 million golf carts never mind EVs.
Im not picking on CA, just using it as an example since its the more progressive in its push right now.
To think you, being tied to a power plant and one electric company in your state is going to work out for you, I would call it fantasy.

3. For the life of me personally. Even with the above said, Im not sure why people with EVs bring up price anyway. I do understand the "hobby" for some and I CERTAINLY understand the fun factor involved. I LOVE stuff like this but to think mainstream America is going to put up with the inconvenience and the fantasy of cheap electricity for their local electric company whom they already love so much is just "out there"
The electric grid as a nation barely survives as it is in the summertime and somehow EVs are going to replace gasoline? No, it's never going to happen, the people will revolt if they are forced into electricity prices unseen in the history of the world to upgrade the electric infrastructure.

Then all of a sudden h2 starts to look as an easy proposition. One in which the American family can live with, instead of having extension cords running out of their homes charging 2, 3, 4, 5 cars and can only do that one at a time or never mind sitting on a mile long line on the interstate waiting your turn to charge your EV when you can drive to the Shell Station and fill up with h2 in 4 minutes.

SO now we will be in an h2 debate so lets take it further, if its not h2 than gasoline will rule until the day comes that something else is invented.
Th manufacturers know it will be h2
It certainly is not going to be rechargeable battery operated cars based on lithium, nothing better than lead acid EVs of 100 years ago.
 
Last edited:
(just discussing)
We all have our thoughts on things and I respect yours but Im on the other side of the fence.
Your post is highly speculative to a degree that is too much to discuss which if we were neighbors I could discuss with anyone in a respectful manner.
1. How are infrastructure changes more difficult then charging? Charging is why the current generation of EVs will never carry more registrations than gasoline. We enjoy a higher standard of living in the USA with a vast road network. Americans will always buy convenience and I suggest it's an all out fantasy if anyone thinks a family with a few cars in it are going to rotate cars around to charge them until the day a car can be charged in the same amount of time currently that it takes to fill a gas tank with gas.

2. Second fantasy is the cost involved. To say electric is cheaper if flat out wrong, yes maybe now but let me keep this short with one example. There currently arent any EVs on the road except for a TINY percent. If that much.
Last summer California was running out of electricity, they asked EV owners to hold off charging at certain times. Well, ok, so do the math.
There are only 600,000 EV cars on the road in California out of 20,000,000 (twenty million) vehicles.
Ummmmm ... so ... what happens when there is even only 500% more EVs on the road totaling 3,000,000 out of 20,000,000? One can not honestly think major upgrades to the electric system and power plants are not going to need a HUGE influx of cash to bring the system up to date can they?
Does anyone on planet earth even think CA can support 3,000,000 EVs out of 20,000,000 vehicles today when they cant support 600,000?
So how would we even get to a 30% EV saturation rate (which would mean 6,000,000 EVs) even if people would put up with the major inconvenience of recharging.
Summary = California today doesnt even have enough power to recharge 6,000,000 million golf carts never mind EVs.
Im not picking on CA, just using it as an example since its the more progressive in its push right now.
To think you, being tied to a power plant and one electric company in your state is going to work out for you, I would call it fantasy.

3. For the life of me personally. Even with the above said, Im not sure why people with EVs bring up price anyway. I do understand the "hobby" for some and I CERTAINLY understand the fun factor involved. I LOVE stuff like this but to think mainstream America is going to put up with the inconvenience and the fantasy of cheap electricity for their local electric company whom they already love so much is just "out there"
The electric grid as a nation barely survives as it is in the summertime and somehow EVs are going to replace gasoline? No, it's never going to happen, the people will revolt if they are forced into electricity prices unseen in the history of the world to upgrade the electric infrastructure.

Then all of a sudden h2 starts to look as an easy proposition. One in which the American family can live with, instead of having extension cords running out of their homes charging 2, 3, 4, 5 cars and can only do that one at a time or never mind sitting on a mile long line on the interstate waiting your turn to charge your EV when you can drive to the Shell Station and fill up with h2 in 4 minutes.

SO now we will be in an h2 debate so lets take it further, if its not h2 than gasoline will rule until the day comes that something else is invented.
Th manufacturers know it will be h2
It certainly is not going to be rechargeable battery operated cars based on lithium, noting better than lead acid EVs of 100 years ago.

I really wasn't trying to spark a debate. All I'm saying is for this to happen, that needs to happen. It won't be fast, but you can limp around charging a battery at 120v in areas where there's not even a level 2 charger(which also sucks). As of the time of me posting this there's nowhere to fill with hydrogen in my area. I went to the website that runs the app for hydrogen car fueling stations. I thought there would be at least one in Wisconsin. There isn't. I have a lot of interest in hydrogen and I do think cost would come down the adoption and beat gasoline.

That said none of this matters unless we're truly hellbent on ending gasoline and I don't think that should be a goal we should be trying to hit. I'm just saying I don't want to to go the gas station anymore if I don't have to. I don't think electric cars are for everyone and that's fine. I'm also fine with them for myself and I think everyone should drive what they want. It seems like the marketing/news approach every time a new tech comes out is like "the tech to replace the whole market is now here!" That's really the wrong way to look at it. I love the diversification and I really hope to see hydrogen do great. I know there's a decent amount in California because they've definitely supported the installation of hydrogen stations. I've watched a number of videos on it and think it's awesome. The stations themselves are kind of crazy.



Sorry, I forgot to comment on the part about price. For me the charging cost is a huge savings. The vehicle replaced was a Ford Edge which was not particularly efficient. Between payment, insurance, and cost to run the Tesla is still appreciably cheaper even than the GTI when new and it's still a bigger car. That won't always be the case. Driving habits, costs in your area, etc will all affect that. I spend $40 to fill up the GTI almost every time I run it low which for me can be twice a week, usually I can make the whole week though. The Tesla uses about that in power for the whole month only home charging.
 
Last edited:
300+ mile range is legit!!! If true and not marketing :poop:. Interesting to see if they can prove the naysayers wrong.
It's WLTP. Expect about 240 EPA and 200 real world.

The only people who like Hydrogen vehicles are just EV haters who think charging infrastructure and battery volatility is magically worse than a compressed flammable gas.
 
I have 4 fueling stations within about 5 miles of me; one at a Chevron and the others at cheapie stations. 2 are fairly new; there used to be 2. Rarely see the pumps in use...
Where are you gonna fuel? Who is gonna build the stations?

Personally, I have come to dread going somewhere to fuel up. What a drag!
 
I really wasn't trying to spark a debate. All I'm saying is for this to happen, that needs to happen. It won't be fast, but you can limp around charging a battery at 120v in areas where there's not even a level 2 charger(which also sucks). As of the time of me posting this there's nowhere to fill with hydrogen in my area. I went to the website that runs the app for hydrogen car fueling stations. I thought there would be at least one in Wisconsin. There isn't. I have a lot of interest in hydrogen and I do think cost would come down the adoption and beat gasoline.

That said none of this matters unless we're truly hellbent on ending gasoline and I don't think that should be a goal we should be trying to hit. I'm just saying I don't want to to go the gas station anymore if I don't have to. I don't think electric cars are for everyone and that's fine. I'm also fine with them for myself and I think everyone should drive what they want. It seems like the marketing/news approach every time a new tech comes out is like "the tech to replace the whole market is now here!" That's really the wrong way to look at it. I love the diversification and I really hope to see hydrogen do great. I know there's a decent amount in California because they've definitely supported the installation of hydrogen stations. I've watched a number of videos on it and think it's awesome. The stations themselves are kind of crazy.



Sorry, I forgot to comment on the part about price. For me the charging cost is a huge savings. The vehicle replaced was a Ford Edge which was not particularly efficient. Between payment, insurance, and cost to run the Tesla is still appreciably cheaper even than the GTI when new and it's still a bigger car. That won't always be the case. Driving habits, costs in your area, etc will all affect that. I spend $40 to fill up the GTI almost every time I run it low which for me can be twice a week, usually I can make the whole week though. The Tesla uses about that in power for the whole month only home charging.

Ok, I see we arent really that far apart in our thinking. Not sure if you ever saw any of my posts but I wouldnt even discount an EV for my wife's car which really just sits around since she works from home. But I would only consider that at the right price for the vehicle. 16 years ago I got out of NY and now live where energy is cheap for my main vehicle it will always be gas as I get a lot of bang for the buck for me, driving a mid size SUV in super comfort and also capable to tow up to 5000 lbs at a price that current EVs could not match.
For my main vehicle I will always want a fairly good size SUV and could never tolerate refueling it more than a few minutes at a time, my budget will suspect that will always mean gasoline for something like this as well but as I said, a second vehicle? At the right price maybe.

Either way I cant help feel something better will come along in the EV world future, if we only knew what. With that said the battery EV, we know limitations, we dont know those of h2 yet as that would be something the energy companies would figure out if it is plausible and not the concern of government, public and private utility companies ... which as we know tend to be always lacking in foresight.
 
It's WLTP. Expect about 240 EPA and 200 real world.

The only people who like Hydrogen vehicles are just EV haters who think charging infrastructure and battery volatility is magically worse than a compressed flammable gas.
Hydrogen vehicles ARE EVs so it is inaccurate to call them EV haters. Typically those who calls others haters are the haters.:)

How can you deny this fact?
California electric grid had trouble just last year supporting 600,000 EVs out of 20,000,000 cars. Let's talk again when we get into maybe the 6,000,000 EV mark our of those 20,000,000 cars in CA and how we will get to the 12,000,000 mark after that. Explain the magic formula that is going to make that happen.

It will not happen in our lifetime with lithium battery storage, its just a fact.
 
Either way I cant help feel something better will come along in the EV world future, if we only knew what. With that said the battery EV, we know limitations, we dont know those of h2 yet as that would be something the energy companies would figure out if it is plausible and not the concern of government, public and private utility companies ... which as we know tend to be always lacking in foresight.
There are really no thermodynamically favorable pathways for hydrogen production, especially when you consider feedstock. Methane reforming is one of the better but it's still a fairly large endothermic process. Physics is hard to ignore unless other (outside) forces make it viable. Plus the fact of really awful energy density and other practical considerations.

If we could only build a pipeline to that huge and limitless source.
 
Ignoring for the moment that almost all hydrogen is derived from methane reformation as @Astro14 alluded to, it has serious challenges with storage, transport and consumer-facing safety.

Presently, HFC's are more emissions intense than MFC's. But MCF's don't have the "green" angle associated with them. Kind of like how we are now construing shipping lumber halfway across the world to burn in place of coal as "green" (biomass).
From a purely physics based perspective it's about as dumb as bricks. You would only do it if forced to do so. Leaks are far more dangerous than other flammable fuel gasses, it is hard to contain, and the density is abysmal.
 
Back
Top Bottom