victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

[Nick Maclaren]

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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'

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

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 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 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.

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.

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!

[Jaques d'Alltrades]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[Mary Fisher]

I agree.

No.

No.

Mary

[Nick Maclaren]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Andrew]

In article , Bob Hobden writes

I thought the EU forced the UK to ditch lean-burn technology and adopt their ideas involving expensive catalysts.

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

[Bob Hobden]

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.

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

for lots of Info on Fuel Cells.

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).

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.

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

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

[Bob Hobden]

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. .

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.

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. :-)

[IMM]

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

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.

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%.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

Fuel cells do chemically transform fuels into waste products. The fact that its at a temperature where no flame is produced doesn't inviolate the chemistry. Perhaps I should have placed "burn" in inverted commas...

LPG, Natural Gas, Methane - these are all fossil fuels that require the bound carbon to be tirned into usually CO2 to release stored energy. It makes no odds how its done.

Al you are gaining is a slight improvement in efficiency.

That is a sound idea. I have no argument against fuel cells used in static power generation as a more efficient way of making electricity. I just think that hydrogen, and mobile fuel cells, is in teh first case too expensive, and in te second place not a long term solution.

We need to concentrate on

(i) efficient and low pollution electrity generatin

and

(ii) electric cars to use it using existing (enhanced) infrastructure and

(iii) not using cars at all.

Excellent idea if it were feasible. Solar cells are alarmingly inefficient and expensive though. I think you will find that pounbd for pound, its ceaper to e.g. grow and coppice willow, and burn it or turn it into methanol, than cover the same acreage of ground with solar cells, AND get more energy out of it too.

That is what I was describing? Not sure why you appearded to contradict whilst actually saying the same thing..:-)

No one said you had to. I merely questin teh need to :-

(i) take the car out to run teh klids 2 miles to school (ii) take th car out to get to the staion to got to work e(iii) take the car out again to do teh shopping (iv) take the car out to pick teh kids up from school again. (v) take the car out at teh weekend to drive round 14 different sheds only to find that the thing you wanted could be got from Screwfix online without using teh car at all.

Knock out all thise unneccesary journeys, and taking the car out to actually enjoy your friends company, go down the pub, go out to a show - well the roads are now clearer, speeds aare higher, stress and power use is lower, and the world is not so polluted.

Its not. Its how it will be. We spend a huge amount of our lives driving to no real benefit and for no real reason iher than thats the way its done. No one says we stop doing it entirely, just stop doing 75% of it.

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

My 30 year old triumph spitfire in stock form at leagal speeds would do better than 40mpg. It didnt after I had tuned it up to 110bhp, admittedly :-) BMC A and B series engines were also capable of well in excess of 40mpg.

Ford 1600 engines were alwasy carp its true, but at least you coudl tweak em up to ridiculous power easily. Fuel injection has been the greatest benefit.

And elecric fans, to redice power loss on cooling fans.

However, we now use fatter tyres (more rolling resistance) and travel fatser, and in general spend so much time in congestion that average fuel consumption is in fact worse.

I totally agree on that one. Catalytic convertors work extremely well in places like califirnia, where temperatures are higher and the big problem was unburnt hydrocarbons producing smog.

They arer wuite good in countries where average jorneys are long enough for them to get up to temp as well.

Not so here, and the stuff in fuel now to repalce lead, is highly toxic and carcinogenic ...diesels are disgusting. They nee filters and catalysts too.

No, ther are more issues at stake than lung irritation. On the global warming front, you are still using fossil fuels with fuel cells.

I attended a 'clean energy' conference some years back attended by represntatives from teh finacial, oil, and automotive industries.

The oil men want fuel cells, because it menas they still get to sell oil.

The automotive men wanted hydrigen, because it meant they could still sell cars.

The financial lot, shook their heads and walked out early. "If its sll tio be enfirced by legistlation, the government will ensure its barely profitable"

I asked the one question - "what is the most energy efficient way of transporting a ton overland" "Railways" muttered someone from the back...and that was it.

Not one preson in that room was actually interested in what was the ultimately sanest transport policy. "Not my problem".

All these latrenatives are being touted by groupps with vested interests in preserving their installed base of manufacturing capability.

Ther IS no installed base of electric ras manufactures: Up till a couple of years ago there wasn't a suitable battery. There is now.

No argument there. And windmills, and tide power and hydroelectric and burning biomass and burning rubbish - especially paper, and CHP and and and...a million ways to make power that cannot be put in a car.

As you may know, I have a little hobby. Flying electric model aircraft. Up to tow years ago there was no way to even approach the power and energy densities of a tank of fuel. There is now. And its tipped the balance so that applied to cars, it comes out damn near equal overall in terms of power and range to weight of a tank of petrol and what is needed to make it turn the wheels..

I can buy all I need to use this technology NOW.

I can't buy a fuel cell.

I am sure that I weill be able to buy both in a few years time, BUT with fuel cells still using FUEL I am convinced teh electric will win ot, because you can generate electricity inso many more ways than "burning" FUEL.

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

What you have failed to realise, is that even these are only stopgaps too.

At the very best, a fuel BURNING engine delivers only 60%

efficiency - maybe a little more. The rest is waste heat.

If you had goine to a snotty uni, where the theory is taught, you would understand that any heat engine - and all the above are heat engines - has its efficiency dictated by the ratio of the temperature of burn to the echaust temperature. Especially as that is why a 'condensing boiler' is built the way it is.

The big picture is about energy conservation, especially in terms of waste heat, and the irreversible (in the short to medium term) problem if taking fossilised carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the air.

To solve that you need to

- use less.

- burn plants you grew last year.

- generate power by means that don't generate waste heat OR

- use waste heat to replace the use of fuel elsewhere (CHP)

Use of the engines described does not solve any of these apart from, in a minor way, the first.

Fuel cells can solve many of the above, but in the end. electricity is bets because it generates very little waste heat when used to generate mechanial motion.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using fossil fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but usually use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use a heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power, and woefully inefficient in terms of space used. Water and wave power does neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are even ore woefully inneficient, but there mat be better technology coming.. burning domestc rubbish and biomass is good as it doesn't use (much) fossil fuel - i.,e. it's more or less carbon neutral, but it does tend to need treatement to reduce pollution of toxic flue gasses.

There is no easy answer. But simply slightly better heat engines burining fossil fuils are almost the worst of all possible answers.

[Grunff]

^^

Bwahahaha! Ha!!

[Dave Plowman]

This may have been true when they were first introduced, but modern types work much more quickly. FWIW, a cat doesn't rely on the engine temperature, but that of the exhaust gasses which are largely independent of this.

[Franz Heymann]

[snip]

Evidently he had, as evinced in the paragraph you described as "totally wrong".

[snip]

Franz

[Franz Heymann]

I have been reading about the immense progress being made in fuel cell technology for more than twenty years now. Why are they not yet in daily use in every household?

I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in Holland, where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit was also sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent, well above a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically generates electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent".

That does not sit well with whoever it was who recently said something about conventional power stations operating at 60%.

Franz

[The Natural Philosopher]

Cat still takes a mile or two to get hot tho. Engine may take longer.

During that time the engine will be running very rich, and the cat will allow huge amounts of unburnt fuel to spew out.

When I reverse the car out first thing, the exhaust STINKS of benzene and other aromatics.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is typical of an old station running coal or gas, built to 60's standards. Noit a modern set.

Depends on what you mean by conventional.

The key to efficiency is getting your working fluids temperature and pressure way up, and the final exhaust way down.

Steam turbines with ultra superheated steam going through multistage turbines with condensors on the back end to get the back end temp way down will do better than 50%. Gas turbines with extremely high combustion temperatures, whose exhaust then heats water to drive a steam turbine, do even better. If the coolant water at around 40-60C is then fed to housing next door for heating purposes...you are getting up towards 75-80% usage of thermal energy released.

And the last little bit goes to help you farm fish in the cooling tanks :-)

So, two points

- in an overall energy and fuel conservation analysis, efficiency is not the primary problem. If you can use waste heat to save heating oil being burnt - example, build a bakery next door and use the heat to run the proving process, and bake bread at the edge of the furnace, or use waste heat to heat greenhouses to grow vegetables, or to farm fish or whatever

- then you have an *ovearall* more efficient system anyway.

- in an overall carbon neutral scenario, you want to reduce the conversion BY ANY MEANS of fossil fuel to carbon dioxide. I am not sure what fuel cells produce, but the carbon has to end up somewhere. If they are running on fossil fuels they don't really solve the problem. Whereas burning waste paper in a combined heat/power set can be extremely inefficient, as long as the heat ends up reducing fossil fuel usage and generateing SOME power. Because paper comes from carbon that has been taken OUT of the air by trees.

The trouble is that neither the governments nor the power industry has any real incentive to either do the OVERALL analsysis, nor to embark on co-operative projects to utilise e.g. waste heat.

If someone could only come up with a plant that I simply stuffed full of junk-mail and which heated my house, generated most of my electricity, and allowed me to run a few pipes rund the garden to grow vegetables in winter from....at similar cost to an oil boiler...