Yesterday it was reported that the UK government has decided to back fossil car fuel for the medium term (50 years) and to endorse the hybrid petrol/electric approach as the quickest way to get CO2 emissions reduced.
Thus no steps to support development of a hydrogen delivery system and infrastructure.
BMW have indicated their disappointment at this and GM can't be pleased after their work.
More importantly, UK motorists should be disappointed as well. If we're going to be milked again for new technology we might as well get the best and we might as well be in step with the US and Europe - the UK decision seems to preempt any policy decision by Europe. It's facile to compare this with the masterminds who lumbered us with RHD but it shares with that decision the same farsighted and thoughtful approach.
|
The government bleats on about how committed it is to "green" policies but when it comes to putting its money where its mouth is the story is different.
At the moment it is laying down tighter and tighter emission criteria and expecting manufacturers and power generators to produce rabbits out of a hat or consumers to be taxed for failure, whilst putting nothing into viable large-scale power generation or towards, for example, setting up an infrastructure for distributing LPG in the short term or determining how we can produce hydrogen without CO2 emissions and distribute it in the long term.
But at the same time levying a "windfall" tax on oil companies North Sea operations profits which will leave them with less to invest in LPG distribution.
|
|
|
Being in step with US and the rest of Europe? Do you mean the U turn on the world CO2 emmissions agreement (US), and ignoring european legislation unless it suits them? (rest of europe)
Mike
|
|
|
TGW
I'm intrigued by this Government idea that petrol/electric hybrids are a good way towards CO2 emission reduction. I don't believe the hybrid concept has any major, intrinsic efficiency benefits. Now, I know that with a clever transmission and energy management, the engine can be running at its optimum eficiency, but this is offset by the energy losses in generating the electricity, battery charge/discharge energy losses, and battery self discharge when parked. Regenerative braking does offer an energy benefit though. In addition they suffer a weight penalty due to the motors and batteries, so need extra power to give acceptable accelleration.
The idea came up, I believe, due to potential American legislation on city air quality. Hybrids could operate on battery alone in the city, so meeting zero (tailpipe) emissions there, but having an acceptable range and refueling times/ capability for other use. However, they seem to have moved away from that idea, by using smaller batteries, so with limited battery range, to save weight. Sure, Honda and Toyota have demonstrated clever technolgy, but I think they've answered a question that nobody has asked.
The thing is that the main efficiency gains, small, highly efficient diesel engines, and clever transmissions, and low rolling resistance technologies can all be applied, without the weight penalties of a hybrid. VW have produced the '3 litre/100km car' (94miles/gall), better than the current hybrids, using these techniques.
I can't help wonder, therefore, where hybrids will fit in. It's worrying that we may be forced down a route by (unnecessary) air quality legislation, for the odd occasion we want to drive in a big town.
Regards
John
|
John,
I do so agree with you on this.
I wonder how much of the politicians bias one way or another on the various issues is influenced to a large extent by the fact that they exist mostly in and around London.
I submit that the problems surrounding pollution/traffic/public transport and all the relative merits of the possible solutions are potentially different for London compared to the *normal* world outside.
(Instantly regrets the use of the phrase "normal world outside London," dons tin helmet, dives for cover)
Regards,
Stuart
|
Stuart
Yes, I grew up in (outer) London, and moved to Kent. I worked in London until 10 years ago.
I'm now a 'Country Boy' and loving it. You're right. London is a special case, and I'm unhappy about Tony's urban militia who seem to think the world stops at the London Green Belt, and what's good for London is good for the rest of us.
Could go on for hours, but I might mention fox hunting, shooting etc, and I'll really have to don the tin helmet.
Rant mode off.
Regards
john
|
|
|
|
John S wrote:
>
> It's worrying that we may be forced down a route by
> (unnecessary) air quality legislation, for the odd occasion
> we want to drive in a big town.
>
> Regards
>
> John
Yes, John - just like we were stitched up with catalitic converters, when lean burn was the way to go, and a lot of money had already been spent on it.
Ian
|
Ian
Quite. A typical case of a 'single-issue' campaign. The anti-lead lobby decided that a vociferous campaign for cats would suit their purposes as they would not be compatible with leaded petrol.
Now, I've no objection to removing lead from petrol; it's unecessary, and cokes up engines, but I'm unhappy about the way it was done. Lead could have easily been phased out wth legislation - after all that's what eventually happened. It just needed the political will. It wasn't as though the technology to run on unleaded wasn't available, and as we've seen all the scares about only having 91 octane unleaded petrol were rubbish. I wonder if someone had visited the States and seen a few petrol pumps dispensing unleaded - and not known their octane ratings are differently calculated?
But in the meantime, other low-emission technologies were stifled, and the potential attendant benefits of lean burn were lost. Don't hear the environmentalists complaining about cats, despite the fact they won't run lean burn and therefore probably increase CO2 emissions.
Must put the soapbox away.
regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite a biased site but Electric Vehicles UK is full of information regarding electric and hybrid motors and legislation.
|
|
|
I guess my knowledge of chemistry (or lack of it) lets me down here, but so far as I know, all forms of 'alternative' energy require some initial 'old fashioned' energy to generate them. Coal/oil/gas for electricity and electricity itself for hydrogen. On the way to converting one form of energy to another, there are efficiency losses in the system.
So, unless we make more use of, say, wind, sun or water power, where is the gain in, say, using hydrogen or electricity?
Sure, LPG is a lower emission fuel, but it's still from a fossil source and emits CO2 when burnt.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for a cleaner environment, but I'm just looking for some clarity.
What technology can we bikers share in?
|
Derek
The difference between gas and petrol is that the hydrogen/carbon ratio of gas is greater, so it produces relatively more water (H2O) and relatively less CO2 when it burns. This may be a benefit.
Yes, there's little point in burning fossil fuel to produce electricity, storing it in a battery and using it in a car if you wish to reduce overall emisions. All an electric car does is relocate the emisions. the term 'zero emission vehicle' is misleading. I believe electric cars can only be viable for urban use. The 'refueling time' problem is unlikely to be solved. Have you ever calculated the energy flow that occurs when you fill a car fuel tank?
You are right. True zero emissions will only come with renewable energy being used to produce the hydrogen or electricity for the vehicles. Until then the losses in conversion make it very uneconomic, as well as producing no emission benefit.
Regards
John
|
Re
"The 'refueling time' problem is unlikely to be solved"
Its called physically swapping the batteries at the gas station, dont bother hanging around for them to be recharged
not rocket science
|
crazed
Yes, I've heard of that one. Not rocket science, but it's unlikely to be quite as easy as that.
The battery packs still have to be recharged and that won't be as quick as a petrol station receiving a tanker of fuel.
There is the energy density problem - batteries occupy a much greater volume than petrol for a given energy content.
Manufacturers would have to have commonality of battery packs
Battery packs deteriorate, and performance between packs may be variable.
'Energy Stations' would have to be large and have a significant staff and major investment in recharging equipment. There will be far fewer of them, which isn't ideal for electric cars.
It's not easy to determine the state of charge of a battery pack, and you won't arrive at a station with empty packs, so you won't want to pay a fixed fee.
There would therefore be far fewer of them; rather inconsistent with limited range electric cars.
On a general electric car note: Batteries discharge in storage and faster than petrol evaporates, so there will still need to be a facility for home charging.
Perhaps not insoluble, but by no means as simple as may be thought.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
John, thanks. In the short to medium term, then, it looks like good old petrol and diesel, with some LPG thrown in perhaps.
On the issue of LPG, I've only seen conversions where the petrol tank is retained and an LPG tank added. That either takes up boot room or replaces the spare wheel. Presumably that's a back up for when you can't find an LPG filler. I seem to see more LPG pumps every week, so when may we see a car using it as its sole fuel?
|
Derek
There are more factory produced bi-fuel cars on the market, but the price premium makes them suitable only for high mileage drivers. Presumably though, an LPG-only vehicle should be cheaper. I've noticed that whenever forecourts are updated, LPG seems to be added, so once the LPG outlets reach a critical mass, I imagine it will only be a matter of time before a maker takes the plunge.
Regards
John
|
John,
And only a matter of time before LPG is taxed to the hilt, when enough use it.
I am astonished that folks still believe CO2 is a problem. I have been saying for years that "Global warming caused by CO2" is a political con-trick.
Now we have the proof. The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been kicked out of his chair for allegedly manipulating the science for political ends.
Full story here.
Before the usual accusations start flying that Bush is in bed with the oil companies, it should be noted that 76 nations voted against Watson.
|
|
|
John,
And only a matter of time before LPG is taxed to the hilt, when enough use it.
I am astonished that folks still believe CO2 is a problem. I have been saying for years that "Global warming caused by CO2" is a political con-trick.
Now we have the proof. The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been kicked out of his chair for allegedly manipulating the science for political ends.
Full story here.
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?...A
Before the usual accusations start flying that Bush is in bed with the oil companies, it should be noted that 76 nations voted against Watson.
|
|
|
a few month old vectra factory fitted as a bi-fuel car (lpg and petrol) sells secondhand for pretty much the same as a bog standard petrol one...
so you could buy one economically ?
if u want a vectra (yea i know)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stuart
I am sure that politicians, who work in London during the week and do not see "the normal world" as you describe it, have no idea what the transport needs of the country are.
And could their myopia be something to do with the fact that when travelling around London they tend to take taxis.
Now taxis can use bus lanes ........................ !
The buses are only there for mere mortals.
|
exactly, this electric farce is just a scheme to travel down the road of alternative fuel supplies only to realise that, hey presto, this is'nt very viable after all. Really, the debate about alternate fuels is too distorted by global macro economic factors such as the oil states (saudi, Quattar) and the balance of power in these regions demanded and influenced by the oil buying countries of US and Britain. I wish the dedate could be taken without these considerations, because these jaundace our politician's ideas about what is and what is not viable. Electric cars were the laughing stock some years back, but now their dressed up as the viable option by our politicians, if this is'nt a volt face then i don't know what is.
Fuel cell technology offers a real alternative, but how much investment do we see, none. I'll send that letter to Tony now!!!!
|
|
|
|
> The difference between gas and petrol is that the hydrogen/carbon ratio of gas is greater, so it produces relatively more water (H2O) and relatively less CO2 when it burns. This may be a benefit.
Why would that be?
Does not water vapour add to the greenhouse effect, but escape demonisation because currently cars produce little of it, and technically it's not a gas?
|
Bogush,
Yes, as you know, water vapour makes up 95% of the vital greenhouse blanket and C02 just 3%.
200 billion tones of CO2 are released annually by nature via the carbon cycle and fossil fuel burning adds just 6 billion tonnes. And cars contribute a tiny amount of that. Park 'em all and see no difference at all.
This global warming rubbish is the biggest con in my history on the planet. Apart from cars and CO2 causing an Ice Age just a few years ago, of course :-)
|
Alwyn
I trust you'll have noticed I said that less CO2 *may* be a benefit.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
Alwyn
There is an article in today's Telegraph about the damage caused by jet engine exhausts in the upper atmosphere.
|
|
|
What about Nuclear? Nice clean method of generating electricity with virtually no CO2 (except making the fuel and building the power stations).
Probably the only realistic long-term energy source.
I believe that electric cars will happen, if and when fossil fuels run out, and that this electricity will *have* to be nuclear-generated.
|
I reckon they wouldn't let cars containing nuclear reactors through the channel tunnel. It could be fun exchanging fuel rods at the local garage, though:
Attendant: "That will be four million pounds, please, sir."
Customer: "Er, do you take Visa?"
Chris
|
|
|
|
what about commercially available biodiesel rather than bog standard diesel in your cars ?
Government has imposed a duty on the renewable fuel of 20p per litre less than ultra-low sulphur diesel.
|
|
|
Interesting postings on this thread. There's some more detail on the topic on
just-auto.com/news_detail.asp?art=37768&app=1
|
|
|
One slight snag with low-duty biodiesel.
It isn't on sale.
(Unless anyone can point me in the direction of a pump)
|
|
Andrew Owens, Greenergy managing director has been spouting on about it, so he must be selling it?
|
|
|
|
Maybe he is, but I bet it's on a tiny scale, probably not enough to keep one car on the road.
There seems to be a massive amount of oilseed rape being grown around our way, though.
|
|
|
Someone at the top of the thread mentions that the govt. is not helping at all with reducing emmisions. At the moment the best forseeable technology for total emmision reduction is FUSION, but is 30 years away or more. This country has one of the best fusion reator reseach programs in JET (Joint European Torus) at Culham. This is, as the JET title suggests is also sponsered by the EEC. JET will close and the new research will be in Canada. A bit like Whittle and the original Jet engine! No vote in 30 year thinking.
Bill
|
|
|
At the moment, Bill, over 20% of electricity generation in the UK is nuclear. This compares to about 80% in France.
The UK proportion is reducing as the old Magnox stations are retired, so fossil-fuelled power generation may increase by between 25 and 33 percent, although we are importing some power from France by the Channel cable.
As I said above, given the political will there is no reason for the UK to use fossil fuel for any power generation, it can be covered by nuclear and tidal, with a small contribution from wind.
|
Brian
Whilst these sources could make a greater contribution, it would actually be extremely difficult to provide electricity solely from tidal, nuclear and wind.
Whilst some storage is feasible, it is very costly, therefore electricity grids operate on a basis of meting instantaneous demand. If you don't, grid freqency is not controlled. You cannot dump 'spare' electricity.
Tidal produces power in line with the tides, and all that can be done is to let the water run out freely if not required. More importantly, if tidal power isn't available at times of peak demand, there's nothing you can do about it.
Wind has the same problem - generation depends on the wind and there is no control.
Nuclear can be operated with some small variations in output, but you cannot cycle (load/unload) nuclear plant in the same way, or in the same timescales, as a fossil fuelled station. They are not 'flexible plant'.
UK grid load varies between 50GW winter peak and 15 - 20 GW summer night (round figures), and on top of that are daily variations between evening and morning peaks, and middle of the night lows.
Unles there is a substantial proportion of flexible fossil fuel plant available, these variations cannot be accomodated.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
John
You are right about the times of generation of tidal powr being fixed and not necessarily in line with demand, and electricity itself cannot be stored, but this is overcome by two methods.
Firstly, since tide times vary around the coast you have at least three locations so that at least one is in generating mode all the time.
Secondly, you use pumped storage schemes so that power generated when there is low demand is used to pump water from a low reservoir to a higher one. When demand exceeds supply you run the water down through the turbines to meet the demand.
ATB
Brian
|
|
|
|
Plus you use spare power at times of low demand to produce hydrogen for your non-polluting cars!
|
|
|
> Tidal produces power in line with the tides, and all that can be done is to let the water run out freely if not required. More importantly, if tidal power isn't available at times of peak demand, there's nothing you can do about it.
What a load of tidal barriers!;-)
|
|
|
