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...