BMW to Slash Fuel Use With Radioactive Tailpipes
German car giant BMW has announced plans to attach radioactive heat-collectors to the tailpipes of future models, in a move predicted to slash fuel use and reduce carbon emissions by around 5 per cent.
The massive fuel saving is bigger than the three per cent achieved by the two current key Efficient Dynamics technologies - stop-start and brake energy regeneration.
The revolutionary technology, originally designed to power space satellites, captures waste heat transferred down the tailpipe and converts it to electricity via a radioactive ‘thermolelectric generator.’
- » See also: CARB Unveils DriveClean, a New Web Tool to Help Consumers Pick Green Cars
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
According to Klaus Draeger, BMW’s Head of Development, “We will be ready for production in about five years.”
Tests show that up to a third of the energy wasted by an internal combustion engine flows down the tailpipe. Harnessing even part of this energy is predicted to result in a dramatic saving in overall vehicle efficiency.
Image Credit - °*¤©§][ Rα3чαт BмW ][§©¤*°→ [ABP] via flickr .com on a Creative Commons license
The word “slash” and “dramatic” are exaggerations for a 5% savings. About what you get from properly inflating the tires. And remember, when corporations claim 5%, it’s really more like 0.5%, down hill with a stiff breeze.
@Mark
While I agree with your wait and see pessimism, The article is correct. 1/3 of the energy goes out as heat out the tail pipe. 1/3 of the energy actually gets to the wheels. But interestingly the last third goes out the radiator. There is a lot of waste heat produced by an ICE. Think about it. A 300 HP output motor actually means that that there is 600 HP being wasted as useless heat. Capturing ANY of that will be beneficial and possible. Since there is more energy wasted than used to move the car, even inefficient heat capture technologies will work immediately and will only get better.
Mark, I couldn’t have said it better!!! EXACTLY what I was thinking, I like your style!
The word “slash” and “dramatic” are exaggerations for a 5% savings. About what you get from properly inflating the tires. And remember, when corporations claim 5%, it’s really more like 0.5%, down hill with a stiff breeze.
That’s a bit unfair. As with all advertising, exaggerating is the norm. However, what has been true is that, up to this point, most of the advancements in fuel efficiency have provided the manufacturers the ability to increase performance (with little or no loss in fuel efficiency…which I believe is where your “0.5% down hill…” perception is valid). From the mid-80’s through about 2007, horsepower and “sexy” sold cars. Fuel efficiency was a side show that only the greenies and the thrifty (e.g., me) cared about.
Now, in this atmosphere, fuel efficiency has begun to take a front seat (although with gas prices now back down to $2, it may slide backwards a bit) and you’ll start seeing all those “advancements” become real.
Am I the only one who thinks its a little weird to be putting radioactive material into our cars?
How much does it cost to save 5%?
Why isn’t this first hooked to the radiaor as noted bove?
It uses heavy metals? How much does it cost to recycle it?
I suspect that the news report throws in the ‘radioactive’ part in error. What BMW is working on is probably a thermo electric converter that utilizes the engine exhaust as a heat source. Thermo-electric piles typically depend on ‘Seebeck effect’ and generate elecricity when placed across a heat source and a heat sink. In the space program, the heat source used to be a radioactive pellet. That is the only connection to ‘radioactivity’!
I don’t think the BMW work uses radioactive materials.
It is using the thermoelectric (Peltier) effect, and this does not require radioactive materials.
Your headline is misleading, unless you can point to your source of information that the materials are radio-active. One would have hoped a review of technology considered the basic science before using emotive headlines.
1)
Will this new technology work with a catalytic converter in US?
If not, then its a europe only technology.
2)
5% savings, but how much will it add to the unit cost of a vehicle? if it costs more than the lifespan fuel savings, then there needs to be a different incentive to get consumers to buy
Math:
5% of 25 mpg is 1.25 mpg
25mpg at 12,000 miles per year =480 gallons
26.25mpg at 12,000 miles per year = 457 gallons
Net delta (round up) 22.9 gallons/year
5 year life span 114.2 gallons
Europe pays ? $6 US/gal = $685 save in 5 year total
US pays @ $2.2/gal = $251 save in 5 year total
(note a 40 mpg base would only save 14.2 gal/year, so a higher mpg vehicle would have reduced savings)
These prices assume minimal change in prices, which is highly improbable in reality.
3)
Any cost estimates on what the upgrade will cost?
1)
Will this new technology work with a catalytic converter in US?
If not, then its a europe only technology.
- Is there a difference in catalyst technology between Germany and the US that you know of? Enlighten us.
2)
5% savings, but how much will it add to the unit cost of a vehicle? if it costs more than the lifespan fuel savings, then there needs to be a different incentive to get consumers to buy
Math:
5% of 25 mpg is 1.25 mpg
25mpg at 12,000 miles per year =480 gallons
26.25mpg at 12,000 miles per year = 457 gallons
Net delta (round up) 22.9 gallons/year
5 year life span 114.2 gallons
Europe pays ? $6 US/gal = $685 save in 5 year total
US pays @ $2.2/gal = $251 save in 5 year total
(note a 40 mpg base would only save 14.2 gal/year, so a higher mpg vehicle would have reduced savings)
These prices assume minimal change in prices, which is highly improbable in reality.
- Yes, but that’s only 5% as tested. You might get even better consumption in colder areas due to the greater temperature delta of the exhaust gases.
3)
Any cost estimates on what the upgrade will cost?
- Should not be that expensive and will drop in price as soon as other manufacturers catch on