"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


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.

snip

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%.


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

It is obvious that I know that, as I have already said that.

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.

Not quite right. The overall mechanical efficiency of the unit has to be up
to it. Also in road engine, the power to weight ratio is one of the most
important factors.

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)

...and use less fuel cleanly.

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

I did say in the short to medium term the diesel and gasoline engines will
have to do, but there are far more efficient versions around than the
abomination we all currently use.

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.

It is the loses at generation and transmission losses. This can be reduced
by having smaller local power stations, the UK had, using natural, using CHP
to heat the local district. Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

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.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"? You see cows grazing under
them. They can be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small footprint.
There are windmill farms being built off-shore all over the UK right now,
Out of sight.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot, but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide all of the houses needs if
you can store the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are there. It needs political
will to force it through.

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.

On the domestic and commercial build front, insulation levels to
superinsulation, passive solar design of homes, as Germany as doing with
Passiv Solar regs, south facing roofs having integrated wet solar/PV cells,
boiler with integrated CPH elec/gas Stirling boilers and soon to be
introduced. The Stirling CPH boilers cut the peaks of electricity usage.
All this is right now, and can and should be implemented. Doing so will
drastically cut fuel usage and emissions and prevent fuel poverty. And more
efficiency is on the way...

What looks promising and appear likely to be introduced is the Zeolithe heat
pump, which runs on natural gas for the provision of domestic heating and
hot water. Currently these units are floor mounted and resemble a typical
boiler in appearance. Zeolithe heating appliance's use less energy and are
more environment-friendly than electric heat pumps and gas boilers. It
provides considerably higher output levels than the current conventional and
condensing boilers. Carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by approximately
20 to 30%.

On the vehicle side, matters are more complex. Of course, local CHP power
stations drip charging electric car overnight is very sensible, but we do
not have the infrastructure for this, as yet. Also what do you do in a
city, when you car is parked on the road? How do you charge it?

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline engines around, and are
running. These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine (not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency, driving a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor, which
charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the starter
motor too.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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?

Why isn't every new and rennovated houses built to superinsulation and
passive solar standards, virtually eliminating a heating system? Not rocket
science and many examples are all over the world right now, so not airy
fairy ideas at all. It would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement.

Oh, and with power stations also going over to the use of Fuel Cells
pollution from them will reduce too. :-)

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%.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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?

Why isn't every new and rennovated houses built to superinsulation and
passive solar standards, virtually eliminating a heating system? Not rocket
science and many examples are all over the world right now, so not airy
fairy ideas at all. It would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement.

Oh, and with power stations also going over to the use of Fuel Cells
pollution from them will reduce too. :-)

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%.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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...

I am truly surprised that some such object has not yet been developed.

It's called a wood stove, and some of these are very efficient.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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...

I am truly surprised that some such object has not yet been developed.

It's called a wood stove, and some of these are very efficient.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles.


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.

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.

Using fully synthetic oils also reduces emissions and prolongs a CATs life.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles.


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.

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.

Using fully synthetic oils also reduces emissions and prolongs a CATs life.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I ou want to get a handle on some eco bullshit there is a book -
scpetical ecologist - or somesuch.

Big industry and teh greens are both lying hypocrites apparently.

Friends of The Earth have been accused of being a front for large landowners
in an attempt to keep people out of the countryside, keeping their lucrative
acres (by taking in rent).




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004

IMM wrote:


On the vehicle side, matters are more complex. Of course, local CHP power
stations drip charging electric car overnight is very sensible, but we do
not have the infrastructure for this, as yet. Also what do you do in a
city, when you car is parked on the road? How do you charge it?


Hang a cable out of the window, or *gasp* build undergroung parking
areas with electrical sockets?

Or charge them up in supermarket car parks etc etc.

You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.




There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline engines around, and are
running.


Sadly these would require huge changes in engine factories, costing huge
amounts of money.

These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine (not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency, driving a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor, which
charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the starter
motor too.



hugely complicated and expensive.

You could simply have a smaller engine that charges the batteries.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...


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?


Why isn't every new and rennovated houses built to superinsulation and
passive solar standards, virtually eliminating a heating system? Not rocket
science and many examples are all over the world right now, so not airy
fairy ideas at all. It would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement.



Because super insulation is useless without other means to reduce
ventilation losses.

You need things like heat exchanges on ventilation - this gets very
expensive.


It is arguable that the energy used to build all this stuff doesn't

get paid back in a sensible timescale.


Curemnt insulation levels are at around ten times what they were in say
the 1950's, with windows being perhpas 3 times better.

We are reaching teh law of diminishing returns on insulation.

IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...


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...

I am truly surprised that some such object has not yet been developed.


It's called a wood stove, and some of these are very efficient.



No, its not. you need more than a wood stove to burn wood and paper cleanly.

You need forced draught and VERY high temperaures to break down the
pollutants properly, and some way to remove solid particles and various
noxious things out of the flue gases.

Such things do exist, but they are rare.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I ou want to get a handle on some eco bullshit there is a book -
scpetical ecologist - or somesuch.

Big industry and teh greens are both lying hypocrites apparently.


Friends of The Earth have been accused of being a front for large landowners
in an attempt to keep people out of the countryside, keeping their lucrative
acres (by taking in rent).



I don't think that one stacks up really.

However there is no doubt that planting more trees is a good way of
fixing atmospheric carbon.

Suburban sprawl adds energy to the atmosphere, stops rain getting into the ground water,

and leads to loss of green ares.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running.


Sadly these would require huge changes
in engine factories, costing huge
amounts of money.

These new engines require no more than existing technology and engineering
tools.

These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine
(not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor,
which
charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor
in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run
on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted
heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the
starter
motor too.

hugely complicated and expensive.

No more complicated than an existing hybrid. Expense will be cheap when
production is up and running.

You could simply have a smaller engine that charges the batteries.

Been tried. Not feasible as yet.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Big industry and teh greens are both lying hypocrites apparently.

Friends of The Earth have been accused of
being a front for large landowners
in an attempt to keep people out of the
countryside, keeping their lucrative
acres (by taking in rent).

I don't think that one stacks up really.

Kevin Cahill in his book Who Owns Britain, made a full frontal attack on
Jonathan Porrit of Friends of The Earth.

However there is no doubt that planting more trees is a good way of
fixing atmospheric carbon.

Or making houses with timber frames, or SIP panels, using planned forests.

Suburban sprawl adds energy to the atmosphere,
stops rain getting into the ground water,

Not if it is resigned right. Gardens account for about half of a suburban
area anyhow. Gutters can empty into soakaways, as they do in some areas.
Also in newer developments, the gutters empty into a separate drain which
the water compy use to re-cycle the water. Nothing is lost.

and leads to loss of green ares.

Green area can be incorporated within the housing, especially trees. Green
areas for the sake of it, with no public access, are pretty useless and
serve no purpose. Land should be used to the benefit of the people.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running.


Sadly these would require huge changes
in engine factories, costing huge
amounts of money.

These new engines require no more than existing technology and engineering
tools.

These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine
(not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor,
which
charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor
in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run
on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted
heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the
starter
motor too.

hugely complicated and expensive.

No more complicated than an existing hybrid. Expense will be cheap when
production is up and running.

You could simply have a smaller engine that charges the batteries.

Been tried. Not feasible as yet.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004