However, producing hydrogen is higly expensive and poluting since most is extracted from gaz and oil.
However bio-mass, waste water, microbial fuel cells, termo-chemical, photoelectrochemical cells and so on, all show potential for cheap(er) and clean(er) hydrogen.

This is the future right before our eyes. It's great that BMW kept their promise but I'm a bit disappointed, not to the power, but to the drive range with hydrogen. I would have hoped for something like 500-700 km with hydrogen only. (The MB F-Cell can do 400 km with hydrogen pressure@70MPa; not liquid hydrogen as in Hydrogen 7)

ROTFL Osna, this is sacred thing! No humor about this will be tolerated.

To achieve this feat is impressive by BMW.

I hope you understand that at 700MPa, you probably have some if not all of the Hydrogen in the container in liquid form, ie if you can find some container to hold it. I also hope you know that with the F-cell of MB it is stored at a bout 20MPa and not 700Mpa. At 700 Mpa, you are looking about 101,500 pounds of force, and that is a small bomb., mind you pressures of 0.3Mpa is strong to kill a human.
The other problem with dealing with Hydrogen in a gaseous form under pressure comes from safety and reliability issues attached with the pipe system that feeds the Hydrogen under pressure to the engine cylinders. It means you have basically pressure test every pipe or tubing to pressures greater than the cylinder pressure. This introduces some form of rigidity and complexities, and I hate to say this- it's a nightmare.
With liquid Hydrogen you do not have to deal with that constraint, although you still don't want the Hydrogen to leak to the atmosphere.

The issue with the power is related to the chemistry of the combustion. You are looking at combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to get water as opposed to Hydrocarbon with Oxygen that gives off water and Carbon dioxide. Although both are exothermic reactions, the Hydrocarbon reaction gives up greater amount of heat because of the molecular masses invloved per reaction/combustion
I am sure in due time, we will find better ways of enriching the Hydrogen molecules to more heat per combustion thus more HP.
The range is also tied to the same reason stated. Liquid Hydrogen actually will give you better range than the one in a gaseous state.
I hope you also understand that the range is governed by the size of the tank, and in this case it has seperate tanks for Petrol and Liquid Hydrogen to manage weight and space, so I am sure the Hydrogen tank is limited in size as well as the Petrol tank.

I believe it is still young, but it is progress in the right direction and I am all for it.

You're right I meant 70Mpa (700 bar) although I mixed it with the F600 Hygenius' figure. I was also very aware of hydrogen being in liquid form in this pressure.
As you said the pressure makes it complicated but I hope you understand that using cryogenic liquid hydrogen sets equally difficult challenges. The low boiling point (at -252.83 degrees Celsius) demands extreme isolation. And that's not simplier than compressing the hydrogen.

No... the amount of energy necessary to convert/store H2 is greater than the amount of energy it provides.

You absolutely right, liquid hydrogen presents a set of challenges that are quite interesting as well.

I found some new photos!
The first one is the best. Look at the rims and then look at the wind turbine. In my opinion the design is comparable.



more photos:
- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Unfortunately, all the world could be driving true green cars this very minute and we'd still face problems with emissions because of industrial processes and energy production. We still brun coal to generate most of our energy, and much of the 3rd world burns trash to dispose of it. Kind of a bummer, but green cars are just a small part of the emissions puzzle.

The hydrogen gas, chicken/egg problem could be solved with nuclear energy. Of course, it's silly to asume that energy policy is going to change overnight just to support one particular "format" in the green car race.

They finally got the photo of 7er right.

It finally looks amazing in the photo as well.

Of course, I know that there are many other sources of pollution, but vehicle emissions differ from industrial pollution in the fact that cars, lorries, airplanes, ships, etc. ("transportation") are 'mobile sources'; industrial plants on the other hand are 'point sources'. The consequence is that it is easier treating those point sources than the mobile sources.
For example: if you have one polluting industrial plant, which emits an amount of NOx equivalent of the amount of NOx generated by a 100 cars, then it is obvious that putting one decent filter on top of the chimney of that factory is easier than equiping those 100 cars with a catalysator...
I also found these interesting figures on the website of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency):


This is what they say about those 'mobile pollution sources':
Mobile sources include both onroad vehicles (such as cars, trucks and buses) and offroad equipment (such as ships, airplanes, agricultural and construction equipment).
Mobile sources contribute significantly to air pollution. Driving a car is probably a person's single most polluting daily activity. Nationwide, mobile sources are responsible for about 75% of carbon monoxide pollution, and more oxides of nitrogen emissions than area or point sources. In urban areas, the motor vehicle contribution to carbon monoxide pollution can exceed 90 percent. In a typical urban area, at least half of the hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide pollutants come from mobile sources. Motor vehicles are also substantial sources of hazardous air pollutants, such as the recognized carcinogens benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and diesel particulate matter

As you say, energy policy is indeed not gonna change overnight, but the reason is that governments worldwide have invested millions of dollars into fossil fuels in the past (funding research into this matter, encouraging the exploitation of oil sources in all forms, supporting fossil fuel based products, ...) while not supporting research into other (cleaner) energy forms. After all those decades, we have ended in a "carbon lock-in"-situation: our whole economy is based on fossil fuels and there is no way back. On top of that, nobody is eager or willing to invest their money in other forms of energy, because there's no demand for such energy forms/products. Why making a program for Linux if almost everybody is using Windows, you know what I mean?
So the first step is that governments encourage or oblige the industry (and individuals) to take action and fund research into environmental-friendly energy forms. In Germany they have booked good results with their 'green certificates': people get money from the big energy suppliers if they put their excessively produced green electricity on the grid, thus encouraging or motivating people to produce green energy.