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.
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
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.
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
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
Check out www.crest.org/articles/static/1/995303594_1008081206.html 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.
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
(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 rotary engines we have developed have all proved less efficient in
practice than the old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption) which
is why only Mazda persist with them and then in only one vehicle in their
range. Controlling pollution from them has been a major problem too.
Fuel Cells (chemical batteries) are much more efficient at converting
chemical energy to electricity than burning it in any way, be it steam
powered turbines or reciprocating engines. It's why it is expected that
Power Generation will follow the Fuel Cell route idc.
As far as regenerative braking is concerned he mentioned Electrically
Propelled Vehicles, I've not seen a normal coach powered in such a way.
Normal diesel engined coaches have had brake generators for years.
Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here. The
Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the sports car.
The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225 HP. See if a
1300cc piston engine can deliver that. Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.
They are best suited to high revving applications. That is why they are
used in light aircraft. The Norton motorbike rotary (which improved the
design too) was sold of to two concerns. One makes it for light aircraft
and the other for target drone aircraft, requiring a small heat and sound
signature, which end up at the bottom of the sea.
The Russians make two rotary engines: one for a plane and the other is used
(well two of them) in a helicopter, which is an ideal application for this
The "Wankle" design of rotary is flawed to what is acheivable, (Wankle never
invented the rotary) and far newer and improved designs are in development.
Again the Russians just reversed an idea that is the reverse of the wankel.
Instead of an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse.
The seals are in the engine block, and can be readily and super easily
changed if necessary. The mixed gas input is via the rotor, which is the
equivalent of injecting the mixture via the piston in a piston engine.
The Canadians have the Qusiturboine, a sort of rotary and turbine together
which has received good press. Here are some web sites on concept engines
and some that are in development
All it needs is a big maker to adopt one of the concepts and run with it.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.
That, at least, is true.
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *
Dave Plowman firstname.lastname@example.org London SW 12
Its also very arguable what the capacity of a wankel actually is.
F1 engines exceed 200bhp per litre with no forced charging.
Top[ fuel drag cars are doing about 1000 bhp per liter with full nitro
and supercharging. Well for 5 seconds anyway :-)
Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.
There are two problems with elecric motor vehicles that would have to be
overcome to make them viable.
First problem would be that they really need some kind of backup power. If
a conventional fuel vehicle (or indeed any fuel that can be quickly
recharged) runs out of or low on fuel then it is a quick and simple job to
put more in the tank. A battery powered vehicle would need some considerable
time recharging - either at the side of the road or at a recharge
point/"fuel" station. Forget to put the thing on charge last night? You're
stuck in the morning. Power cut? Ditto. The occasional long journey?
Second problem is one of recharge logistics.
Battery vehicles would represent a considerable advantage in towns and
cities. Quiet and pollution free at the point of use.
However, the majority of people living within large cities and towns do not
have designated parking spaces, and most of it is on-street parking.
Pavements would have to be dug up and publically accessible chargeing points
installed to be able to recharge such a vehicle, along with a suitable
payment mechanism. I can't see the LA taking too kindly to me stringing a
cable across the pavement to my house! Even in areas with controlled parking
zones there is no right to be able to park outside one's house, so the price
of someone parking in "my" space, abandoning a car or even leaving a skip
would be complete immobility for me. Visitors? Hmmm.
I'd have a battery powered vehicle at a sensible price and with decent
performance/range like a shot. But until these problems are solved, then
it's not viable.
email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
A small Stirling engine/generator running on liquid fuel or LPG could be
onboard. This could cut in when the charge is low, when either parked or
moving. A Stirling is far cleaner burning being external combustion. This
is not a real probelm.
You are allowed to move down a public highway, but not stop on it. Parking
permits do not guarantee a parking place, they just prevent other people
The streets were dug up to install comms cables, so tat is not a real
The problems can be overcome.
The fantastic power/weight of electric motors and eliminating heavy and
power sapping transmission, combined with advances in batteries, make it
viable to have an engine/electric hybrid. The current crop have the engine
as No.1 power unit with the electric motor as backup. It would be the
reverse, with the engine assisting, if necessary, and acting as backup
power, if necessary, and generating power for the batteries.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
Not really. A breakdown truck with a big battery can recharge it at
about 5 miles range per minute. If you run out of fuel anywhere you are
in for a wait of usually an hour or more before the AA gets there.
I don't see it as any different frankly. You don't let your car run out
of petrol, and you shouldne'ty let it run out of charge either.
Forget to fill up with petrol? Your stuck.
Petrol strike? Ditto.
Plan it with one hour stops every 300 miles. Forced breaks :-) You
shouldn't be driving more than 5 hours without a break anyway.
This IS a more curious and interestimg point, however for most urban
drivers, range is not a huge issue. They areusing the thing to go
shopping, or on other similar short trips. Actually I fill up every
couple of weeks for a 300 mile range tank, and I am in the country...if
you can't find somewhere tpo park the car - public car park etc - for an
hour or so every couple of weeks, that has a charge point..it might be
supermarket, underground car park or whatever. Easy enough to take a
pre-paid car and stick it in the slot, ane wire your car up to the
charger whilst you do the shopping.OK its not off peak...
..but in the end, in Canada they have on street electric points to plug
into to stop the cars freezing anyway. Something akin to a parking meter
with a plug is all it takes.
I don;t see these as major problems frankly, as transition would be
slow. For example I know of a few places where LPG cars can fuel up now,
whereas a few years ago you bought your own gas and stuck it in the boot :-)
Even a ten minute stop at a charge station could net you 50 miles more
'fuel' in the 'tank'
For mne, right now, an electric 'shipping trolley' would be perfect to
replace the Punto. We don't use that car for distances.
Which seems to be the reason people get electric vehicles in Los Angeles,
nothing to do with environmental reasons, but the fact they are the only
thing you can park right outside the door to the shops (and free to boot).
Eh? Last report was september 2003?
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
September 29, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.