"Austin Shackles" wrote in message
...
On or around Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:43:16 -0000, "Robin"
enlightened us thusly:

So we get to find out the actual figures in the budget. Great.
Robin

The relevant text:-
Road Fuel Gases 7.35

bloody gits.

so what's the next magic solution, Hydrogen I suppose. which is a LONG
way
from being the magic pollution-free fuel that everyone keeps dreaming of.

Hybrids.

I am quite interested in the Honda Insight MkII

I reckon that with serious investment, you might get a substantial amount
of
genuinely-renewable hydrogen (not produced, for example, from methane but
cracked from water by renewable electricity) in oh, about 20 years.

even then, it requires a radical rethink of the way the whole system
works -
you start working out the volume of fuel which is used currently for
transport of all kinds, and it's a truly big number.

Granted that high-efficiency PV solar panels have been made and
demonstrated
and work, and you can get H out of the H2O with such, the sheer volume of
the problem is such that this ain't gonna be practical in the short or
even
really medium term, and governments only look at most 3 years ahead
anyway.

The problem is that LPG isn't really "a solution". The fact that most LPG
conversions are aftermarket doesn't help matters, as often the actual
emmisions that can be achieved by a guy in a garage are much worse than what
can be achieved in a research lab with multi-million budget.

Modern car engines are very highly tuned to reduce emmissions, but the
aftermaket LPG solutions are tuned so that they work. I suspect many
conversions end up being no cleaner than they started off with.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)

Andrew wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 05:49:28 GMT, athol wrote:

Have they yet manufactured a PV cell that produces more electrical
energy during its economic life than the gross energy required to make
the cell in the first place? Last time I checked, they were close but
hadn't broken even.

It is open to debate but I think so
http://www.homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf
http://www.titansolar.com/pvfaq.html

Of course these people are enthusiasts.

One does not question the energy cost of a dry cell battery, yet is
has sufficient utility to be worthwhile using one, even when the
financial cost is measured in GBP/kWhr.

Man's use of energy historically had nothing to do with efficiency, so
that industrialists were quite happy to trade burning coal to produce
1/4% of its heat as motive steam power against employing manual
labour. From that point increasing efficiency gained a competitive
edge.

At the moment this has balanced out at a trade of fossil heat versus
electrical power of from 3:1 to 2:1 depending on capital spend, there
is no reason to suppose it will stay that way.

Economic life of wind turbines was similar last time I checked - the
energy required to make the parts, assemble and install the whole
thing and maintain it through its lifespan was more than the amount of
electrical energy produced...

Again I doubt this, though I was surprised to see their working life
put at around 20 years. Of course the whole drive for these is highly
dependant of the renewable obligation payment levied on fossil fuels.

Thank you. You have reinforced my fundamental point. These devices
are _not_ environmentally positive. The energy required to make them
exceeds the "renewable" energy that they produce. At the end of the
day, a solar panel is like a battery - lots of energy has been put in
during manufacture, and energy can be extracted under the right
conditions. The convenience is that they can produce power in a
remote location and be portable. A solar panel or wind turbine that
is connected into a power grid that is not remote is environmentally
negative!

--
Athol
http://cust.idl.com.au/athol
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, athol wrote:

Andrew wrote:
Again I doubt this, though I was surprised to see their working life
put at around 20 years. Of course the whole drive for these is highly
dependant of the renewable obligation payment levied on fossil fuels.

Thank you. You have reinforced my fundamental point. These devices
are _not_ environmentally positive. The energy required to make them
exceeds the "renewable" energy that they produce.

This sounds worryingly like axe-grinding to me. I can't see how, over
a twenty year lifespan, a wind generator won't produce more energy
than it takes to make the thing. Even at only one third usable output
time (two-thirds downtime due to lack of wind) that's over 60,000
hours of generation. If my maths is correct, a 1000kW generator
working at half power will output over 10^14 joules of energy in that
time - a little over a day's output from a nuclear powerstation. In
terms of the nation's energy consumption it's tiny; in terms of making
a hi-tech windmill I'd say it was huge.

And you have to define where you measure the start point of the energy
dept from. The amount of electricity used? The amount of coal burnt to
produce that electricity? The amount of coal + its extraction and
transport energy? Don't forget that coal fired power stations (50% of
electricity production in the UK) are hugely inefficient in terms of
converting fuel into electricity. Seems to me that there is plenty of
scope for an advocate either way to spin the figures up.

I don't relish the prospect of wind turbines marching across the
countryside, but I won't easily buy the notion that they produce less
energy that it takes to make the damn things.


--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

On or around Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:46:21 +0000, Stewart
enlightened us thusly:


And you have to define where you measure the start point of the energy
dept from. The amount of electricity used? The amount of coal burnt to
produce that electricity? The amount of coal + its extraction and
transport energy? Don't forget that coal fired power stations (50% of
electricity production in the UK) are hugely inefficient in terms of
converting fuel into electricity. Seems to me that there is plenty of
scope for an advocate either way to spin the figures up.

you've also to consider the energy used in mining and refining the material
to make windmills, although, of course, you have to consider that for
alternatives, too.

I don't relish the prospect of wind turbines marching across the
countryside, but I won't easily buy the notion that they produce less
energy that it takes to make the damn things.

AOL

and apparently, the offshore windmills suggested are nearer to 50%
functional than the 33% claimed for land-based ones.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
other people to be entirely to your liking?"
Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.

On or around Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:50:33 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
enlightened us thusly:

Hybrids.

I am quite interested in the Honda Insight MkII

the only thing that yer hybrid should allow you to do is to run an internal
combustion engine at higher efficiency by limiting the rev range etc. at
which it operates. which is good, but it's always going to involve fossil
fuels somehow.

The problem is that LPG isn't really "a solution". The fact that most LPG
conversions are aftermarket doesn't help matters, as often the actual
emmisions that can be achieved by a guy in a garage are much worse than what
can be achieved in a research lab with multi-million budget.

well yes, obviously, but...

Modern car engines are very highly tuned to reduce emmissions, but the
aftermaket LPG solutions are tuned so that they work. I suspect many
conversions end up being no cleaner than they started off with.

there I disagree. Modern cars produce low emissions by the use of a
catalytic converter, and still produce CO2 and H2O, this is unavoidable.
The modern electronic fuel systems are more efficient - possibly up to
double the efficiency of the old-fashioned carbs.

However, a lot of LPG conversions use the same electronic fuel control as
modern petrol systems, and thus achieve the same sort of efficiency.
There's a slight CO2 gain, power-for-power, in that the Propane/Butane which
is LPG has proportionally more Hydrogen than Carbon, however, water vapour
is also a greenhouse gas.

the main thing that LPG engines are better on is harmful stuff, sulphur and
nitrogen compounds (compared with diesel) and benzene and similar (compared
with petrol).

I can also get my old-fahioned V8 to produce less CO and unburnt HC on LPG
than it ever did running twin SUs.






--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
other people to be entirely to your liking?"
Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.

Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, Steve Firth
wrote:


There is only one solution, nuclear and we need to start
building AGRs or CANDU reactors *now* because when we need them, there
won't be time to build them.

Absolutely not. If you believe there is only one solution you will not
be able to accept that there may be others. That suits those with an
aligned interest very well.

What about changing our consumption habits?



--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

Austin Shackles wrote in message
...
On or around Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:50:33 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
enlightened us thusly:

Hybrids.

I am quite interested in the Honda Insight MkII

the only thing that yer hybrid should allow you to do is to run an
internal
combustion engine at higher efficiency by limiting the rev range etc. at
which it operates. which is good, but it's always going to involve fossil
fuels somehow.

The problem is that LPG isn't really "a solution". The fact that most LPG
conversions are aftermarket doesn't help matters, as often the actual
emmisions that can be achieved by a guy in a garage are much worse than
what
can be achieved in a research lab with multi-million budget.

well yes, obviously, but...

Modern car engines are very highly tuned to reduce emmissions, but the
aftermaket LPG solutions are tuned so that they work. I suspect many
conversions end up being no cleaner than they started off with.

there I disagree. Modern cars produce low emissions by the use of a
catalytic converter, and still produce CO2 and H2O, this is unavoidable.
The modern electronic fuel systems are more efficient - possibly up to
double the efficiency of the old-fashioned carbs.

However, a lot of LPG conversions use the same electronic fuel control as
modern petrol systems, and thus achieve the same sort of efficiency.
There's a slight CO2 gain, power-for-power, in that the Propane/Butane
which
is LPG has proportionally more Hydrogen than Carbon, however, water vapour
is also a greenhouse gas.

the main thing that LPG engines are better on is harmful stuff, sulphur
and
nitrogen compounds (compared with diesel) and benzene and similar
(compared
with petrol).

I can also get my old-fahioned V8 to produce less CO and unburnt HC on LPG
than it ever did running twin SUs.


And what do you think happens to all those removed catalytic convertors that
have all sorts of nasties in them when they get removed? Ah, good old
landfill!!!! LPG is currently the only commercially viable alternative fuel
that IS cleaner than petrol or disiesel, hybrids still burn petrol and store
all sorts of nasties in the cat for the future, hydrogen production is
probably more environmentally unfriendly than running on petrol in the first
place, and di-lithium crystal matter/anti-matter warp drive engines are a
long way off! Now, howsabout a nuclear powered turbine
engine/generator/traction motor set-up?
Badger.

Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, Badger wrote:

...hydrogen production is
probably more environmentally unfriendly than running on petrol in the first
place, and di-lithium crystal matter/anti-matter warp drive engines are a
long way off! Now, howsabout a nuclear powered turbine
engine/generator/traction motor set-up?


It's OK; we're all saved! I've just found the answer (actually I
posted it here a couple of years ago, but it amuses me enough to post
again)

http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm

Read the site, and you'll see that this is an electric car that has
enough surplus energy to run a generator that keeps it's own batteries
fully charged.

And it must work, because it seems people have been giving him tons of
money to develop the idea, as you can see here

http://www.mnglobal.com/energy/
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Ti...aud/index.html
http://www.phact.org/e/tilley.htm


--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

"Stewart Hargrave" wrote in message
...
Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, Badger wrote:

...hydrogen production is
probably more environmentally unfriendly than running on petrol in the
first
place, and di-lithium crystal matter/anti-matter warp drive engines are a
long way off! Now, howsabout a nuclear powered turbine
engine/generator/traction motor set-up?


It's OK; we're all saved! I've just found the answer (actually I
posted it here a couple of years ago, but it amuses me enough to post
again)

http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm

Read the site, and you'll see that this is an electric car that has
enough surplus energy to run a generator that keeps it's own batteries
fully charged.

And it must work, because it seems people have been giving him tons of
money to develop the idea, as you can see here

http://www.mnglobal.com/energy/
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Ti...aud/index.html
http://www.phact.org/e/tilley.htm

That is tragic!

On or around Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:09:02 -0000, "Badger"
enlightened us thusly:

And what do you think happens to all those removed catalytic convertors that
have all sorts of nasties in them when they get removed? Ah, good old
landfill!!!! LPG is currently the only commercially viable alternative fuel
that IS cleaner than petrol or disiesel, hybrids still burn petrol and store
all sorts of nasties in the cat for the future, hydrogen production is
probably more environmentally unfriendly than running on petrol in the first
place, and di-lithium crystal matter/anti-matter warp drive engines are a
long way off! Now, howsabout a nuclear powered turbine
engine/generator/traction motor set-up?

wot, like the one in "the Big Bus"?

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25