"IMM" wrote in message
Vehicles "are" a very large polluters, especially when they are
concentrated
in cities, where masses of people live. Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation standards, boiler efficiency , etc,
yet
there appears no immediate solution to the filthy car.

Sorry!? I think you have that the wrong way round.
The laws on vehicle pollution continue to get tougher and tougher and the
manufacturers have had to comply to continue to sell vehicles. There has
been massive strides in reducing pollution from cars, per mile travelled.
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all those
old polluting buses.

As for central heating, I thought the figures were they produced 80% of the
greenhouse gasses produced in this country.

Technology is there
to make boilers very efficient and very clean burning, at no great cost,
also by increasing insulation standards, a homes emissions can be
drastically reduced. This can be done right now and people wonder why it
is
not being implemented. The car? Well apart from taxing larger engines, not
much at all can be done. There are some advanced concept engines around,
but the big corps have not yet taken up these ideas, tending not wanting
any
change at all.

Not much can be done about cars? What about the exhaust emmissions laws
which have worked amazingly and conuinue to get tougher, the MOT emissions
tests, that's a damn sight more than is happening with central heating.
Some people use boilers that are decades old and with no maintanance.

Fact is... All the major manufacturers and significant others are working
flat out on Fuel Cell engines which produce no pollution except steam.
Meanwhile they continue to develop even cleaner reciprocating engines.
The Hydrogen to run Fuel Cells can be produced using sunlight eventually, to
split water, so then we will be using the energy current account and not
even extra heat will be produced above that the sun provides.


Cars are even dirtier until the engine and exhaust is hot. So, in many
cases, when the car is used to go to Safeway or the school run, the thing
is
hardly up to temperature before being switched off. In this period they
pollute heavily. The current piston internal combustion engine needs
totally replacing.

True but that's as much a social problem. Anyway, see my comments above.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars
359 data units completed.

Bob Hobden wrote:


Fact is... All the major manufacturers and significant others are working
flat out on Fuel Cell engines which produce no pollution except steam.


Wrong. The hydrogen has to be made. An innefficent process that burns as
much, if not more, fossil fuel than any other form of transport.

Better to use batteries, and then whilst the electricity generation is still

an issue, as with hydrogen, at least there is no need to build a huge

new infrasturcture of hydrogen supply and handling equipment.



A car that will do 300 miles between an overnigh charge of 9-10 hours at
20 Amps is technically feaisble and hads been demonstrated. Got about
600bhp as well, and under 1.5 tons weight.


Meanwhile they continue to develop even cleaner reciprocating engines.
The Hydrogen to run Fuel Cells can be produced using sunlight eventually, to
split water, so then we will be using the energy current account and not
even extra heat will be produced above that the sun provides.



I doubt that it can in any real quantity. The energy per unit area
falling on teh earh is probably best used to make e.g. biomass, which is
about teh most efficient process we have available.


However the real simple answer that dare not speak its name, is 'why the
**** do we need to go anywhere at all' and the answer is, mostly we don't.

Lets face it most of what we do could be done in front of a console from
home, if we had to.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message

Vehicles "are" a very large polluters,
especially when they are concentrated
in cities, where masses of people live.
Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation
standards, boiler efficiency , etc,
yet there appears no immediate solution
to the filthy car.

Sorry!? I think you have that the wrong way round.

No.

The laws on vehicle pollution continue
to get tougher and tougher and the
manufacturers have had to comply to
continue to sell vehicles.

Not tough enough, the Internal combustion engine is only around 30%
efficient, and the emissions are highly polluting because of the small
explosions it creates (not continuous burn).

There has been massive strides in reducing
pollution from cars, per mile travelled.

They are still highly inefficient and pollute heavily.

Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control,
lean burn engines, two stage ignition, direct
petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come.

They are twiddling around the edges of a flawed highly inefficient design.

We are significantly reducing overall
pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now
all we need to do is get rid of all those
old polluting buses.

Pollution is still high and efficiency woefully low.

As for central heating, I thought the figures
were they produced 80% of the
greenhouse gasses produced in this
country.

Not in a million years. CH output is very low. Natural gas is the main CH
fuel, and this is the cleanest fuel by a mile.

Technology is there to make boilers very
efficient and very clean burning, at no great cost,
also by increasing insulation standards, a
homes emissions can be drastically reduced.
This can be done right now and people
wonder why it is not being implemented.
The car? Well apart from taxing larger engines,
not much at all can be done. There are some
advanced concept engines around,
but the big corps have not yet taken up
these ideas, tending not wanting
any change at all.

Not much can be done about cars?
What about the exhaust emmissions laws
which have worked amazingly and conuinue
to get tougher, the MOT emissions
tests, that's a damn sight more than is happening
with central heating.

Emission equipment still is just twiddling around the edges. See above.

Some people use boilers
that are decades old and with no maintanance.

A natural gas boiler can go for many, many years and still be quite clean
burning. Modern boilers are super efficient, and emissions super clean too.
The efficient of gas boilers rose by about 30% in a few years. Lets see if
GM can do that with a sill piston engine.

Fact is... All the major manufacturers and
significant others are working
flat out on Fuel Cell engines which produce
no pollution except steam.

MIT realsed a paper that fuel cells research has not come up with the goods
and diesel and gasoline engines will have top fill the bill in the short to
medium term. The US government gave billions to auto makers to squander.
They don't want change. They should not be given research money at all.
The technology should researched by other organisations and legislation to
make them adopt the technology.

Meanwhile they continue to develop
even cleaner reciprocating engines.

Still twiddling around the edges. No major breakthroughs yet, despite some
nice, more efficient, and running, concept engines around.

http://conceptengine.tripod.com/
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/

The Russians have come up a Rotary engine that is the reverse of the wankel,
Instead of a an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse.
the seals are in the engine block, and can be readily changed. Good for
Heat and power applications. The Russians make two normal Wankel engines
for aircraft and helicopters.

The Australians have come up with a good improvement on the piston engine,
not using a crank shaft and or swivelling con-rods. No real figures as yet,
but production imminent. An auto engine is currently being tested in a
Proton car donated by Proton.
http://www.revetec.com/website/

Cars are even dirtier until the engine and
exhaust is hot. So, in many cases, when
the car is used to go to Safeway or the
school run, the thing is hardly up to temperature
before being switched off. In this period they
pollute heavily. The current piston internal
combustion engine needs totally replacing.

True but that's as much a social problem.

No. the engine is highly polluting until fully hot which takes many miles.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:
Bob Hobden wrote:

Fact is... All the major manufacturers and significant others are working
flat out on Fuel Cell engines which produce no pollution except steam.

Wrong. The hydrogen has to be made. An innefficent process that burns as
much, if not more, fossil fuel than any other form of transport.

Better to use batteries, and then whilst the electricity generation is still

an issue, as with hydrogen, at least there is no need to build a huge

new infrasturcture of hydrogen supply and handling equipment.

And just how do you think electricity to charge the batteries is
produced? With a loss approaching 30% at every stage: thermal value of
fuel for power station to power delivered at charger (taking in power
loss in transmission lines), charging the accumulator, discharging the
accumulator all taken into account, the net result is a great deal more
pollution to propel your so-called clean electric vehicle.

Unless, of course, *YOU* can differentiate between the reciprocating
electrons which are being excited by wind or hydro power........

A car that will do 300 miles between an overnigh charge of 9-10 hours at
20 Amps is technically feaisble and hads been demonstrated. Got about
600bhp as well, and under 1.5 tons weight.

And?

Meanwhile they continue to develop even cleaner reciprocating engines.
The Hydrogen to run Fuel Cells can be produced using sunlight
eventually, to
split water, so then we will be using the energy current account and not
even extra heat will be produced above that the sun provides.



I doubt that it can in any real quantity. The energy per unit area
falling on teh earh is probably best used to make e.g. biomass, which is
about teh most efficient process we have available.

Much more efficient to burn the hydrogen in a reciprocating (or rotary)
engine than to convert it through a fuel cell to run an electric motor,
though electrically propelled vehicles do have the potential to convert
the slowing down process back into usable power.


However the real simple answer that dare not speak its name, is 'why the
**** do we need to go anywhere at all' and the answer is, mostly we don't.

Lets face it most of what we do could be done in front of a console from
home, if we had to.

And I suppose the goods we need will be delivered through the telephone
wires too? When I go shopping I visit a number of outlets. I can see
what I want to buy, and reject what had interested me from its
description. I generally share a car with a friend's family anyway,
doubling the efficiency of a trip. Well, since he has a family, more
than doubling it.

Sorry, your dream will never catch on.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:
"IMM" wrote in message
Vehicles "are" a very large polluters, especially when they are
concentrated
in cities, where masses of people live. Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation standards, boiler efficiency , etc,
yet
there appears no immediate solution to the filthy car.

Sorry!? I think you have that the wrong way round.
The laws on vehicle pollution continue to get tougher and tougher and the
manufacturers have had to comply to continue to sell vehicles. There has
been massive strides in reducing pollution from cars, per mile travelled.
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all those
old polluting buses.

I suggest that you take the effort to find out the facts behind the
government and motor lobby propaganda. That is completely untrue.
Here are a few of the major reasons, but I shall not follow up much.
If you want to know the science behind what I am saying, I will answer
if I can, but I will not play Blair and Howard.

1) An increasing number of cars are fitted with power steering
and brakes, and (worse) air conditioning. In addition to increasing
the fuel consumption, it means that engines need to be left running
when the car is stopped in traffic. Not all are as bad as Citroen,
but it is now rare for engines to be switched off in traffic jams.

2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but
increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine
is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the
the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.

I will give you that an INCIDENTAL effect has been the removal of lead
and sulphur but, as someone with breathing problems, I can witness that
pollution for a given amount of traffic is getting worse.

3) The various regulations have the effect of increasing the weight
of vehicles, discouraging more economical two-wheeled transport (both
motorcycles and bicycles, ridden on the road). I believe that it would
now be cheaper for me to get a HGV licence than a motorcycle one, and I
am a very "low risk" person. And cycling is now finished, as a form of
medium-distance commuting (3-10 miles), and that is DIRECTLY due to the
changes in regulations and attitudes of the "powers that be."

Other people have pointed out the errors in your "pollution-free" car
theory. All it does is move the pollution from the suburbs to the
power station, though I agree that doing so COULD be used to reduce
pollution. I know of no plans that any government has, and definitely
not the UK, to do so.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Bob Hobden wrote:


Fact is... All the major manufacturers and significant others are working
flat out on Fuel Cell engines which produce no pollution except steam.


Wrong. The hydrogen has to be made. An innefficent process that burns as
much, if not more, fossil fuel than any other form of transport.


Better to use batteries, and then whilst the electricity generation is still


an issue, as with hydrogen, at least there is no need to build a huge


new infrasturcture of hydrogen supply and handling equipment.


And just how do you think electricity to charge the batteries is
produced? With a loss approaching 30% at every stage: thermal value of
fuel for power station to power delivered at charger (taking in power
loss in transmission lines), charging the accumulator, discharging the
accumulator all taken into account, the net result is a great deal more
pollution to propel your so-called clean electric vehicle.


Well first of all, because it isn't 30% at every stage.

Thermal efficiency of a modern power station is up to 65% - more if you
can use the waste heat to e.g. heat water for the neighborhood.

Elecricity generators and motors can achieve over 90%, and transformers
etc are typically around the 95% plus mark.

I am not sure on distribution losses. Theortecically those can be as low
as you like, by use of fatter or supercinducting cables.

My extensive experience of charge/dishcarge of secondary cells suggests
that 90% convesrion or better ins not uncommon.

The big things in favour of all electric cars tho are

(i) the initial electricity generation can be done by many different
things - from windmills to nuclear power stations, as well as burning
non fossil fuels (biomass)

(ii) its a lot easier to scrub atmospheric pollutants from a power
station flue than from a car exhaust. That doesn';t affect the hydrigen
versus electric car argment tho.

(iii) we already have an electrical distribution system that has huge
off peak energy availability. And that is precsiely when we would be
charging our cars up. Essentally tow electrckettles overnight is all it
takes power wise, to get a full days motoring (unless you intend to
drive to scoitland, in which case the electric car uis stll not able to
cut teh mustard, although it is feasible to fully rechage current cells
in about one hour at e.g. a specially equipped 'service station'



Unless, of course, *YOU* can differentiate between the reciprocating
electrons which are being excited by wind or hydro power........



Hydrogen would use electricity in greater quantities, needs an
infrastructire to distribute and store it, It simpkly isn't there as a
road fuel. Fuel cells are possibly better, but they don't seem to work
yet and they have top produce some end producs that need disposal. And
they stll use fossil fuel. OR very expemsive synthetic fuel.



A car that will do 300 miles between an overnigh charge of 9-10 hours at
20 Amps is technically feaisble and hads been demonstrated. Got about
600bhp as well, and under 1.5 tons weight.


And?



Its here, it works. It needs nothing extra to be used immediately. It
simply shifts teh burden of energy back to teh power stations, where it
can actually be dealt with in a planned way, according to whatever
policy you have in mind.

Its just horrendously expensive on batteries right now. However the
technology is advancing at huge rates, it has been done, it can be done,
and I actually costed out how much it would cost ME to do it. Under
£100,000 using multiple cell phone type batteries. If trhat cannoty be
knocked down ny a gfactor of 5 I would be very surprised...



Meanwhile they continue to develop even cleaner reciprocating engines.
The Hydrogen to run Fuel Cells can be produced using sunlight
eventually, to
split water, so then we will be using the energy current account and not
even extra heat will be produced above that the sun provides.




I doubt that it can in any real quantity. The energy per unit area
falling on teh earh is probably best used to make e.g. biomass, which is
about teh most efficient process we have available.


Much more efficient to burn the hydrogen in a reciprocating (or rotary)
engine than to convert it through a fuel cell to run an electric motor,
though electrically propelled vehicles do have the potential to convert
the slowing down process back into usable power.



Yes, but generating the hydrogen is inefficient in the first place, as
is the means of delivering it.

How much desle does it take to deliver each liter ifdiesel to your pump/

How much ti drive there and collect it?

Its cheaper to deliver electricty than almost anything else.




However the real simple answer that dare not speak its name, is 'why the
**** do we need to go anywhere at all' and the answer is, mostly we don't.


Lets face it most of what we do could be done in front of a console from
home, if we had to.


And I suppose the goods we need will be delivered through the telephone
wires too? When I go shopping I visit a number of outlets. I can see
what I want to buy, and reject what had interested me from its
description. I generally share a car with a friend's family anyway,
doubling the efficiency of a trip. Well, since he has a family, more
than doubling it.


Well, I don't. Apart from fresh food, and touchy-feely items, 90% of
what i buy is done on the net now. I make my living off it now. Days go
by when I don't even get into the car.


The economies of scale really work with delivery driving. One van, going
from depot to door, can carry as much as 15 cars going to te shops and
back.

One worker, sitting at a PC, not only saves (in our case) about 3500
quid a year in transport charges, but 4 hours a day commute time, not to
mention all the hours sitting in the bog, chatting near the coffee
machine etc etc.

We reckoned that 20% more productivity at 65% of the cost was the
difference between home working and going to work.



Sorry, your dream will never catch on.



It has. In my case, and in millions of others. E-shopping and home
working is steadily becoming not 'unsual' but 'minority normal'

Give it 5 years..and some tax breaks to encourage it...

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message

Vehicles "are" a very large polluters, especially when they are

concentrated

in cities, where masses of people live. Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation standards, boiler efficiency , etc,

yet

there appears no immediate solution to the filthy car.

Sorry!? I think you have that the wrong way round.
The laws on vehicle pollution continue to get tougher and tougher and the
manufacturers have had to comply to continue to sell vehicles. There has
been massive strides in reducing pollution from cars, per mile travelled.
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all those
old polluting buses.


I suggest that you take the effort to find out the facts behind the
government and motor lobby propaganda. That is completely untrue.
Here are a few of the major reasons, but I shall not follow up much.
If you want to know the science behind what I am saying, I will answer
if I can, but I will not play Blair and Howard.

1) An increasing number of cars are fitted with power steering
and brakes, and (worse) air conditioning. In addition to increasing
the fuel consumption, it means that engines need to be left running
when the car is stopped in traffic. Not all are as bad as Citroen,
but it is now rare for engines to be switched off in traffic jams.



No issue there. But people never used to switch off engines in jams
anyway. And you don't need steering when the car is staitonary..


2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but
increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine
is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the
the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.



I don't think you are correct on that. The NO stuff anyway. The biggest
benefirt is that they do (once hot) redice hydrocarbon emmissions that
are teh bigger causes of smog. Not disagreeing with your main point tho.


I will give you that an INCIDENTAL effect has been the removal of lead
and sulphur but, as someone with breathing problems, I can witness that
pollution for a given amount of traffic is getting worse.


I agree on that. But I have noticed something different. I can drive the
M25 on a sunday, and not be badly affected. But on a weekday.....its hell.

The difference? No diesels. Diesels produce emormous quantities of very
nasty pollution and are not subject to legislation.



3) The various regulations have the effect of increasing the weight
of vehicles, discouraging more economical two-wheeled transport (both
motorcycles and bicycles, ridden on the road). I believe that it would
now be cheaper for me to get a HGV licence than a motorcycle one, and I
am a very "low risk" person. And cycling is now finished, as a form of
medium-distance commuting (3-10 miles), and that is DIRECTLY due to the
changes in regulations and attitudes of the "powers that be."


I don't actually agree there either. Tother half's Fiat Punto is more
economical, with its power steering, and lighter, than - say - a morris
minor of 50 years ago, or indeed a Mini of 30 years ago. And faster an
better braked than any of my 60's sports cars - MG midgets etc.

I agree on cycling. Too many cars for it to be safe.



Other people have pointed out the errors in your "pollution-free" car
theory. All it does is move the pollution from the suburbs to the
power station, though I agree that doing so COULD be used to reduce
pollution. I know of no plans that any government has, and definitely
not the UK, to do so.




I thimk a two pronged attack is called for - to reduce overall need to
drive, which I frmly believe will actually come about naturally as more
an more people use the net to do what a car used to. It worts for me.

And a radical switch to electric cars. No polluton at teh point of
drive, but, as you pioint out, shifting the pollution back to the power
gerenating stations. Where IMHO it is MUCH better addressed.

Cars acn omly run on a limited rtange of fules, at limited efficiency
due to the weight of making the realy efficient engnes, Power staons can
run on almost anythig and the weight is not an issue. They don't suffer
from idling, intermittent use, and so on. In short everything about
electric cars is ideal for car use. They only use energy when moving,
they produce no noise or effluents, (or much less) and it is even
possible to use regenerative braking to charge th ebatteros when slowing
them down, although the economics of that are yet to be proven.

Performance with lithium polymer cells is more than adequate - in fact
it is stupendous. Distribution of energy exists in the national grid.
Overnight charging would actually improve power staion efficiency as it
happens when other electrical uses are low, so power stations run
continuosly - much better for efficiency. The only unknown to me is the
energy cost and lifetime of battery production and recycling. But I
doubt it is worse than making e.g aluminium for car engines, or steel
for transmissions.

The cars are simpler too - all wheel drive with motors integarted into
the hubs, no need for gearboxes by and large, or transmissions. In short
its a simpler beast. One enormous battery pack, 4 motors and a bit of
power electronics. That replaces engine, cooling system, transmiision,
axles - in short most of the heavy bulky bits. No maintenance, apart
from replacing defective cells and so on. No oil changes, or plug
changes. Performance with most of te weight slung low under the cahssis,
and a motor on every wheel, with de facto traction control - its a rally
drivers dream come true. No gears to go, no clutch to go. And easy
access to better than 800bhp if you need it, or the ability to trickle
along at 90% efficiency at much lower power levels. £00 miles + range on
an overnight charge.

If YOU could get one of these at 20 grand that cost 1/4 of the cost of
a petrol car to run, would you not buy one? (on cheap rate electricity I
reckon about 15 quid to 'fill the tank' for 300 mile range). I wold,
like a bloody shot!








Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No issue there. But people never used to switch off engines in jams
anyway. And you don't need steering when the car is staitonary..

I remember when they did. If nothing else, they would overheat if
you didn't. And, in the case of cars like the Citroen, I am afraid
that you DO need the engine when stationary and not parked.

2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but
increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine
is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the
the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.

I don't think you are correct on that. The NO stuff anyway. The biggest
benefirt is that they do (once hot) redice hydrocarbon emmissions that
are teh bigger causes of smog. Not disagreeing with your main point tho.

I didn't say NO, but nitrogen oxides. Some are produced in the engine,
and they may be changed in valency but will not be destroyed, and some
will be added in the converter. You get slightly more, but a different
set - and lean-burn engines produce more, too, unless great effort is
taken to reduce that effect.

I agree on that. But I have noticed something different. I can drive the
M25 on a sunday, and not be badly affected. But on a weekday.....its hell.

The difference? No diesels. Diesels produce emormous quantities of very
nasty pollution and are not subject to legislation.

Yes, they are, but it is much weaker. The fines are risible for a
transport company. Blame Whitehall, again :-(

I agree on cycling. Too many cars for it to be safe.

That's not the reason, because the drop has occurred as much in areas
where there has been no increase in the number of cars. Saturation is
saturation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:04:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


According to a joint UK Netherlands Consumer Association Antivirus
tool test AVG does not work. It didn't detect 4 out 5 common worms.
--
Martin

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

And just how do you think electricity to charge the batteries is
produced? With a loss approaching 30% at every stage: thermal value of
fuel for power station to power delivered at charger (taking in power
loss in transmission lines), charging the accumulator, discharging the
accumulator all taken into account, the net result is a great deal more
pollution to propel your so-called clean electric vehicle.

Well first of all, because it isn't 30% at every stage.

Thermal efficiency of a modern power station is up to 65% - more if you
can use the waste heat to e.g. heat water for the neighborhood.

Elecricity generators and motors can achieve over 90%, and transformers
etc are typically around the 95% plus mark.

At optimum levels, and only the very best and most expensive - and how
many manufacturers use that sort of quality of component?

I am not sure on distribution losses. Theortecically those can be as low
as you like, by use of fatter or supercinducting cables.

Superconducting cables can be as low as zero (for 99,99% pure niobium at
liquid nitrogen temperatures), but the environmental cost of keeping
them in the superconductor range would far outweigh the gain.

My extensive experience of charge/dishcarge of secondary cells suggests
that 90% convesrion or better ins not uncommon.

The big things in favour of all electric cars tho are

(i) the initial electricity generation can be done by many different
things - from windmills to nuclear power stations, as well as burning
non fossil fuels (biomass)

But burning hydrogen, or even a hydrocarbon in an internal combustion
engine will still be less polluting.

(ii) its a lot easier to scrub atmospheric pollutants from a power
station flue than from a car exhaust. That doesn';t affect the hydrigen
versus electric car argment tho.

Then what happens to the scrubbed-out pollutants, I wonder? And
incedentally, scrubbing pollutants from that volume of exhaust gas
requires a gigantic investment in plant and running power, and it's my
belief that that investment will never 'repay' the amount of
energy/pollution required for its construction.

(iii) we already have an electrical distribution system that has huge
off peak energy availability. And that is precsiely when we would be
charging our cars up. Essentally tow electrckettles overnight is all it
takes power wise, to get a full days motoring (unless you intend to
drive to scoitland, in which case the electric car uis stll not able to
cut teh mustard, although it is feasible to fully rechage current cells
in about one hour at e.g. a specially equipped 'service station'

I've said it before in another forum: if you bothered to use a
spellchecker, your posts would be readable. It takes too long to reply
yo one of your posts point-by-point.

/rest of it snipped. Life is too short/

And thread killed.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article , Bob Hobden
writes

"IMM" wrote in message
Vehicles "are" a very large polluters, especially when they are
concentrated
in cities, where masses of people live. Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation standards, boiler efficiency , etc,
yet
there appears no immediate solution to the filthy car.

Sorry!? I think you have that the wrong way round.
snip
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
I thought the EU forced the UK to ditch lean-burn technology and adopt
their ideas involving expensive catalysts.
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all those
old polluting buses.

As for central heating, I thought the figures were they produced 80% of the
greenhouse gasses produced in this country.
Technology is there
to make boilers very efficient and very clean burning, at no great cost,
also by increasing insulation standards, a homes emissions can be
drastically reduced. This can be done right now and people wonder why it
is
not being implemented. The car? Well apart from taxing larger engines, not
much at all can be done. There are some advanced concept engines around,
but the big corps have not yet taken up these ideas, tending not wanting
any
change at all.

Not much can be done about cars? What about the exhaust emmissions laws
which have worked amazingly and conuinue to get tougher, the MOT emissions
tests, that's a damn sight more than is happening with central heating.
Some people use boilers that are decades old and with no maintanance.

Air transport is a far worse offender than modern road vehicles, and all
totally tax free. Bare that in mind the next time you pop into the
supermarket and buy those exotic fruits and baby vegetables.

However for real pollution, try travelling on the Victoria line of the
London underground if you really want your eyes to smart with
particulate crap
--
Andrew

"Jaques wrote in message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:
Bob Hobden wrote:

Fact is... All the major manufacturers and significant others are
working
flat out on Fuel Cell engines which produce no pollution except steam.

Wrong. The hydrogen has to be made. An innefficent process that burns as
much, if not more, fossil fuel than any other form of transport.

Not quite true, fuel cells don't burn anything and Hydrogen can be obtained
from the usual sources, LPG, Petrol, Natural Gas, methane, methanol etc by
the use of a reformer which is significantly more efficient and less
polluting than when the same fuel is burnt.


Better to use batteries, and then whilst the electricity generation is
still

an issue, as with hydrogen, at least there is no need to build a huge

new infrasturcture of hydrogen supply and handling equipment.

And just how do you think electricity to charge the batteries is
produced? With a loss approaching 30% at every stage: thermal value of
fuel for power station to power delivered at charger (taking in power
loss in transmission lines), charging the accumulator, discharging the
accumulator all taken into account, the net result is a great deal more
pollution to propel your so-called clean electric vehicle.

Electricity produced by/from Fuel Cells (probably the Molten Carbonate type)
which will significantly improve the efficiency of fossil fuel Power
Stations. Some cells are already in use for small scale static power
stations.

Check out http://www.crest.org/articles/static...008081206.html for
lots of Info on Fuel Cells.

A car that will do 300 miles between an overnigh charge of 9-10 hours at
20 Amps is technically feaisble and hads been demonstrated. Got about
600bhp as well, and under 1.5 tons weight.

And?

Meanwhile they continue to develop even cleaner reciprocating engines.
The Hydrogen to run Fuel Cells can be produced using sunlight
eventually, to
split water, so then we will be using the energy current account and
not
even extra heat will be produced above that the sun provides.



I doubt that it can in any real quantity. The energy per unit area
falling on teh earh is probably best used to make e.g. biomass, which is
about teh most efficient process we have available.

I understand it would take a battery of solar cells the size of 25% of the
UK to power the whole world from sunlight, especially in a desert area with
high sunlight levels. Such electricity could be used directly in vehicles
with normal batteries or to produce Hydrogen from water to power fuel cells
( which are batteries too).


Much more efficient to burn the hydrogen in a reciprocating (or rotary)
engine than to convert it through a fuel cell to run an electric motor,
though electrically propelled vehicles do have the potential to convert
the slowing down process back into usable power.

Totally wrong, and ever heard of regenerative braking, had it on coaches for
years and there are other more recent developments in this area relating to
normal cars too.



However the real simple answer that dare not speak its name, is 'why the
**** do we need to go anywhere at all' and the answer is, mostly we
don't.

Lets face it most of what we do could be done in front of a console from
home, if we had to.

Unlike you I don't want to spend my life in a prison, even a very nice one.


And I suppose the goods we need will be delivered through the telephone
wires too? When I go shopping I visit a number of outlets. I can see
what I want to buy, and reject what had interested me from its
description. I generally share a car with a friend's family anyway,
doubling the efficiency of a trip. Well, since he has a family, more
than doubling it.

Sorry, your dream will never catch on.

That's not a dream it's a nightmare.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars
359 data units completed.

"Nick wrote in message after me .
..
The laws on vehicle pollution continue to get tougher and tougher and the
manufacturers have had to comply to continue to sell vehicles. There has
been massive strides in reducing pollution from cars, per mile travelled.
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all
those
old polluting buses.

I suggest that you take the effort to find out the facts behind the
government and motor lobby propaganda. That is completely untrue.

No it's not! everything I've written above is true. Ignoring the data, if
you simply look at the petrol consumption of ,say, a 1600cc car 30 years ago
( about 26mpg) and compare it with a modern engine ( about 40+mpg) you will
find significant improvements in efficiency which also does relate to the
pollution produced, even without catalists in the exhaust system. The fact
that these modern cars also have much more inside them consuming power
proves my point further.
..

2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but
increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine
is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the
the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.

I will give you that an INCIDENTAL effect has been the removal of lead
and sulphur but, as someone with breathing problems, I can witness that
pollution for a given amount of traffic is getting worse.

Probably due to the significant rise in the use of Diesel engines (in cars)
which produce lots of small particules (soot) which get into our lungs and
clog them up. Particle Traps are on their way to cure this problem, I think
it's one of the French manufacturers that is already installing them. I too
have developed Asthma in the last 10 years.


3) The various regulations have the effect of increasing the weight
of vehicles, discouraging more economical two-wheeled transport (both
motorcycles and bicycles, ridden on the road). I believe that it would
now be cheaper for me to get a HGV licence than a motorcycle one, and I
am a very "low risk" person. And cycling is now finished, as a form of
medium-distance commuting (3-10 miles), and that is DIRECTLY due to the
changes in regulations and attitudes of the "powers that be."

Other people have pointed out the errors in your "pollution-free" car
theory. All it does is move the pollution from the suburbs to the
power station, though I agree that doing so COULD be used to reduce
pollution. I know of no plans that any government has, and definitely
not the UK, to do so.


Nobody has pointed out a flaw at all, to me they just show they don't know
about Fuel Cells, their possibilities, uses and how fast the technology is
advancing so there is little chance of agreement on this topic.

Oh, and with power stations also going over to the use of Fuel Cells
pollution from them will reduce too. :-)

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars
359 data units completed.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"Nick wrote in message after me .
.
The laws on vehicle pollution continue to get tougher and tougher and
the
manufacturers have had to comply to continue to sell vehicles. There
has
been massive strides in reducing pollution from cars, per mile
travelled.
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more
to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all
those
old polluting buses.

I suggest that you take the effort to find out the facts behind the
government and motor lobby propaganda. That is completely untrue.

No it's not! everything I've written above is true.

It is, but out of context and with little relation to the big picture.

Ignoring the data, if
you simply look at the petrol consumption of ,say, a 1600cc car 30 years
ago
( about 26mpg) and compare it with a modern engine ( about 40+mpg) you
will
find significant improvements in efficiency which also does relate to the
pollution produced, even without catalists in the exhaust system. The fact
that these modern cars also have much more inside them consuming power
proves my point further.

Because there have been minor improvements in a flawed highly inefficient
piston engine design over the past 30 years, you appear to think this
exonerates the internal combustion engine, or it is efficient or clean or
something. It is NOT.

The engine it at the end of its lifespan, it should have gone 50 years ago.

2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but
increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine
is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the
the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.

I will give you that an INCIDENTAL effect has been the removal of lead
and sulphur but, as someone with breathing problems, I can witness that
pollution for a given amount of traffic is getting worse.

Probably due to the significant rise in the use of Diesel engines (in
cars)
which produce lots of small particules (soot) which get into our lungs and
clog them up. Particle Traps are on their way to cure this problem, I
think
it's one of the French manufacturers that is already installing them. I
too
have developed Asthma in the last 10 years.


3) The various regulations have the effect of increasing the weight
of vehicles, discouraging more economical two-wheeled transport (both
motorcycles and bicycles, ridden on the road). I believe that it would
now be cheaper for me to get a HGV licence than a motorcycle one, and I
am a very "low risk" person. And cycling is now finished, as a form of
medium-distance commuting (3-10 miles), and that is DIRECTLY due to the
changes in regulations and attitudes of the "powers that be."

Other people have pointed out the errors in your "pollution-free" car
theory. All it does is move the pollution from the suburbs to the
power station, though I agree that doing so COULD be used to reduce
pollution. I know of no plans that any government has, and definitely
not the UK, to do so.


Nobody has pointed out a flaw at all, to me they just show they don't know
about Fuel Cells, their possibilities, uses and how fast the technology is
advancing so there is little chance of agreement on this topic.

Oh, and with power stations also going over to the use of Fuel Cells
pollution from them will reduce too. :-)

As I mentioned in another post, according to MIT the fuel cell is not viable
yet for vehicles, which are the world's worst polluters.

Far more efficient Rotary and Stirling diesel and petrol units appear the
best options to fill the gap. The Stirling is external combustion, which is
much a clean on the burn. Even the Rev Tec Aussie engine, a piston engine,
improves thermal efficiency from 25% to over 50%.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:


And just how do you think electricity to charge the batteries is
produced? With a loss approaching 30% at every stage: thermal value of
fuel for power station to power delivered at charger (taking in power
loss in transmission lines), charging the accumulator, discharging the
accumulator all taken into account, the net result is a great deal more
pollution to propel your so-called clean electric vehicle.


Well first of all, because it isn't 30% at every stage.


Thermal efficiency of a modern power station is up to 65% - more if you
can use the waste heat to e.g. heat water for the neighborhood.


Elecricity generators and motors can achieve over 90%, and transformers
etc are typically around the 95% plus mark.


At optimum levels, and only the very best and most expensive - and how
many manufacturers use that sort of quality of component?



Its not that hard. Efficiency is mostly about using bigger dimensions of
wire and iron for a given power: Wire and iron is not expensive, and in
power generation it is sensible to spend a few extra quid to save a few
thousand a year on fuel costs.

The tackiest electric motors I have are no worse than 50% efficient -
better than an IC engine.



I am not sure on distribution losses. Theortecically those can be as low
as you like, by use of fatter or supercinducting cables.


Superconducting cables can be as low as zero (for 99,99% pure niobium at
liquid nitrogen temperatures), but the environmental cost of keeping
them in the superconductor range would far outweigh the gain.


My extensive experience of charge/dishcarge of secondary cells suggests
that 90% convesrion or better ins not uncommon.


The big things in favour of all electric cars tho are


(i) the initial electricity generation can be done by many different
things - from windmills to nuclear power stations, as well as burning
non fossil fuels (biomass)


But burning hydrogen, or even a hydrocarbon in an internal combustion
engine will still be less polluting.



Well no it isn't, because it produces water vapour at the least in the
car, secondly the hydrogen has to be produced - from electricity.

If you look at the overall energy equations, you use more to generate
hydrogen from electricity than to generate the electricty.

Also, as I said, distributing hyrogen requires a whole new
infrastructure, Its not safe to do it in a simple tanker. Nor can it
simply be stored in underground tanks.




(ii) its a lot easier to scrub atmospheric pollutants from a power
station flue than from a car exhaust. That doesn';t affect the hydrigen
versus electric car argment tho.


Then what happens to the scrubbed-out pollutants, I wonder?


Well, one of the ways of getting rid of Co2 from burining e.g. oil that
has nbeen proposed, is to put it back underground.

Atomically, pollution is a zero sum game. We had all that carbon in teh
ground, and no one worried. Now its in the air and we do. Its used up
atmospheric oxyhgen (and hydrogen does that to make water) and so
depending on wthere the lower oxygen or higher CO2 is the problem, you
can e.g. make carbonates and bury em.

Essentially scruvbbing power stations flues makes thungs like sulphuric
acid - useful in luquid form, bad in teh air - and nitric acid.

This is BETTER than buring in a car where all teh issues raised make it
innecicient and expensive to remove, but not ideal.

I think we need to look at this iin a sensible perespective.

There is nothing wrouong witha hydrogen car, if hydrogen were just lying
around waiting to be burned, except that eventual;ly you would use up
all teh ocygen in teh air. At least with burning carbomn, we know rthat
plants eat teh stuff and release oxygen...


Hydrogen and electric produce on teh one hand just water, and on the
other hand nothing, as waste products, used as fuel, at the point of usage.

BUT when it comes to teh energy analysis of producing electricity and
hydrogen, and distributing them, as far as I know the only way to mass
produce hydrogen is by electrolysis.


So the hydrogen has electricity as its starting point anyway, and cannot
be 100% efficient in generation.

And te storage of hydrogen is non trivial.

The only reason hydrogen is being considered is because it can be burned
in not-too-different- cars. The car industry is amongst the stupidest
and most conservative there is. They are only thinkning of teh least
investment to produce the next lump of tin that will 'meet regulations'.

WE I hope, are talking about saving energy, and lowering global pollution.

When you look at it, actually the tidiest thing is nuclear. Produces no
pollution at all, apart from warm water, apart from that niggling litle
problem of radioactive spent fuel and things what got near it. Crack
that one and you are away...it may be that in the end we have to acept
it as the lesser of many evils.


And
incedentally, scrubbing pollutants from that volume of exhaust gas
requires a gigantic investment in plant and running power, and it's my
belief that that investment will never 'repay' the amount of
energy/pollution required for its construction.


Well, that depends on legislation doesn't it? In the micro scale. On the
macro scale saving the planet might be worth it?

If for example you calculted that teh loss of property and erosion of
coastlines diue to gl;obal warming was costing the inusrance industry
say 50 nubillion a year, then teh insurance companies might decide to
fund the costs themselves...out of sheer self interest. Or the
givernments decide that the taxpayer should bear the cost, and get it
back in reduced insurance premiunms. Etc.






(iii) we already have an electrical distribution system that has huge
off peak energy availability. And that is precsiely when we would be
charging our cars up. Essentally tow electrckettles overnight is all it
takes power wise, to get a full days motoring (unless you intend to
drive to scoitland, in which case the electric car uis stll not able to
cut teh mustard, although it is feasible to fully rechage current cells
in about one hour at e.g. a specially equipped 'service station'


I've said it before in another forum: if you bothered to use a
spellchecker, your posts would be readable. It takes too long to reply
yo one of your posts point-by-point.



That is the neatest way of ducking out of a losing argument I have ever
seen.


/rest of it snipped. Life is too short/

And thread killed.