IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Performance with lithium polymer cells is more than adequate - in fact
it is stupendous. Distribution of energy exists in the national grid.
Overnight charging would actually improve power staion efficiency as it
happens when other electrical uses are low, so power stations run
continuosly - much better for efficiency. The only unknown to me is the
energy cost and lifetime of battery production and recycling. But I
doubt it is worse than making e.g aluminium for car engines, or steel
for transmissions.

The cars are simpler too - all wheel drive with motors integarted into
the hubs, no need for gearboxes by and large, or transmissions. In short
its a simpler beast. One enormous battery pack, 4 motors and a bit of
power electronics. That replaces engine, cooling system, transmiision,
axles - in short most of the heavy bulky bits. No maintenance, apart
from replacing defective cells and so on. No oil changes, or plug
changes. Performance with most of te weight slung low under the cahssis,
and a motor on every wheel, with de facto traction control - its a rally
drivers dream come true. No gears to go, no clutch to go. And easy
access to better than 800bhp if you need it, or the ability to trickle
along at 90% efficiency at much lower power levels. £00 miles + range on
an overnight charge.


How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional electric
element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The car would
probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat out in summer.
Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars cabin?



Oh, I am sure it ouuld be triple insulated to latest building standards
and heat by dint of the sun shining on it...



---
--

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
...


As you may know, I have a little hobby.
Flying electric model aircraft.
Up to tow years ago there was no way
to even approach the power and
energy densities of a tank of fuel. There
is now. And its tipped the balance so that
applied to cars, it comes out damn near
equal overall in terms of power and range
to weight of a tank of petrol and what is
needed to make it turn the wheels..

I can buy all I need to use this
technology NOW.


So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and performance.


They CAN be. One allegedly is.


Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are
cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating more
electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going to
produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not to
mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.



Yes, but the alternatives are worse. At least the potential to generate
electricty from non fossil sources exists: hydrogen cars still need
hydrogen, and have neither the range, nor indeed the possibility to
generate the hydrogen cheaply except by electricity. The battery wins
over the hydrogen car. Period.

Whatever is dirty in a power statin is dirtier in a car. If you can go
froim fuel to power in a car at a certain level ofeffciency, then
certainly you can go from fuel to power, and electricity at least as
efficiently and at least at same level of pollution in a power station.
In fact its possible to do better when the weight limitations of car
engines are removed.


Otherwise we would have to look at biofuels - methanol, biodiesl etc. -
and hope that the economics of production make more sense.

I don;t think they do.






---
--

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:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Martin Brown wrote:



Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...


Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than fission
power.



I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.



Yes, I tend to agree with you.


The number of deaths per kilowatt hour which occur in the extraction and
processing of fossil fuels is a lot higher than the corresponding number
for the extraction of uranium



I would not be surprised.


The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.


That is certainly true.



The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible, despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby. And even that contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.



Yes, the arguments are kind of curious:-

"We mustn't use nuclear power because the waste it generates might after
a few hundred years cause a little environmental change in certain deep
caves or the bottom of the ocean, so we had better stick to natural gas
and oil and coal, which are running out, are absolutely known TO BE
causing MAJOR environmental impact, and WILL DEFINITELY affect the WHOLE
HUMAN RACE in a few years, extremely adversely".

The real reason is probably to limit the suppies of enriched uranium in
case some gets into the wrong hands...


Franz

IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:



So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily

than

with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency

per

square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is

usually

simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a

system.


Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

Efficiency is a measure of the efficacy against a theoretically perfect
system,

That is the beginning of a circular argument.


of something doing the job it is designed to do. As normally
measured by how much it produces of the desired output versus how much
input it needs.

If we for example take solar energy, it is not menaingful to say that
e.g. civering every roof in lonbdon with a .3% efficient solar panel is
inefficient, if the cost of so doing would actually be less than
building and running an equivalent power station over the same .
timescales.

One could argue that in terms of various resources one or the other is
more efficient.

The power station takes up less space, but uses more fossil fuel. The
electric panel is inefficient in overall thermodynamic terms, but maybe
more efficient in the actual use of sunlight, since we don't have to
wait a couple of million years for the trees to turn back into oil...The


power station has far less labour content involved, but perhaps uses
more materials.

uppose fo an instant that we cracked fusion power. Who cares about
efficiency, since the actual waste products - helium and heat - are
totally insignificant in a global context. At that point electcity would
become the cheapest form of energy, subject to no taxes at all probably,
and we would all be driving electric cars, and heating our houses
electrically, immediately :-)

Thanks for the homily.

I agree that in general usage, "efficiecy" is bandied around with gay
abandon. However, the discussion about solar panels was a
scientific/engineering one. To talk about "efficiency per unit area" in
such a context is pure nonsense.


What balls!

I reserve a part of a roof of 20ft x 10ft, 200 squ foot. I put in flat
plate collectors, I get n volume of solar heated hot water on a certain
isolation at a certain time of year. I put in the same 200 squ foot
Thermomax solar collectors. I get n x 2 volume of hot water on the same
isolation and certain time of year. For each squ foot of roof the Themomax
is 100% more efficient. Is that clear?

I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof, twice the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the Thermomax solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?




Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.


Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a 25Jw
one.

Because it takes up the same floor space.



---
--

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
...


The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible, despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby.


If every power staionin the world was nuclear we would be in big trouble
getting rid of the waste.


Might cost less than trying to get rid of all the CO2 tho.




And even that contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.


The human element. When it breaks down, big, big problems. Best forgot
nuclear as cleaner, lower tech alternatives are around right now.



The biggest single disaters have been caused by other things.

Earthquake in Iran, 30,000 dead. Smilar erahquake in San francisco with
modern building regs, 3 dead.


How many died at Bhopal. Non nuclear accident.
How many die in coal mines. Non nuclear accidents.
How many did Saddam Husseing gas and kil. Non nuclear accident, and, if
he had no oil to sell, because we wre all nuclear, how many would he
have been ABLE to kill?
How many die on oil platforms every year. Non nuclear.
How many die when monsoons fail, or bangladesh gets flooded (again)
Strong evidnce to link with fossil fuel burning.

In short, the Nuclear power scenario stacks up to one or two accidents -
five mile island and chernobyl. Chernobyl was probably no more expensive
than an oil tanker sinking in terms of clean up. Fve mile island - I
forget, but it hasn't ruined the country.





---
--

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

Rod Hewitt wrote:

"IMM" wrote in
:


How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional
electric element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The
car would probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat
out in summer. Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars
cabin?


Last I heard, it sounded as if 'they' were going to add a small petrol
burner to provide heating. Apparently this was the most efficient/sensible
option, at least in the early days of such vehicles.

Perhaps we will get SEDBUK ratings on them as well as mpg equivalents?



The total power needed to run our car at - say - 30 mph, is about 5kW.
At least 5% of that is likley to be wasted as heat - say 250W. That is
potentially available to heat the car without losing anything.

I would not think that more than another 2-300W would be needed to heat
the car in any circumstances. So yes, there is enough energy. Maybe the
heater and/or aircon would knock the range down 20%, but it does that on
a normal car anyway.


Rod

IMM wrote:

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .

"IMM" wrote in
:


How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional
electric element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The
car would probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat
out in summer. Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars
cabin?

Last I heard, it sounded as if 'they' were going to add a small petrol
burner to provide heating. Apparently this was the most efficient/sensible
option, at least in the early days of such vehicles.

Perhaps we will get SEDBUK ratings on them as well as mpg equivalents?


A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the engines can
provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding insulation, bonded to
the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would improve matters. The drive
motors and batteries produce heat, so this must be available for use.



Yes. Cars ARE in fact insulated very well. You only need to take a ride
in e.g. my old series III landrover woith nowt but a sheet of aluminium
between you and the elements to see how MUCH insulation a modern car has
by comparison.

Most cars have something like 1/4" of fibre and carpet on teh floors,
the rear seats line that part of the car, and the doors usually have a
2-4" aiorgap in them. Dreaughts are of necssity totally absent by and
large, and roofs are normally lined with headlining and again about 1/4"
of insulation. some cars even have double glazed windows.

Even with a U value of about 5 - equivalent to a totally single glazed
car, and a square meterage area of - what - 16 sq meters of cabin, that
is 80W per degree C differential, so AT WORST for -5 outside and 25C
inside, it only needs 2.4Kw to heat it. In practice that is a fairly
ludicrous U vcale, becaseu teh glass is thicker than window glass, and
most of the cabin is well insulated.

Lets face it, a lining of 15mm celotex is not going to cost very much.
And there is going to be a wedge of batteries and electronics under the
floor kicking out a hundred watts. Getting heat from the motors - if
thse are ouboard on the wheels - is not so easy, but even there, if
wound with pipe istead of solid wire, the heat could be removed bu
circulatng coolant through them..



---
--

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:09:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to read.
I'll give one a miss.




How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?


Well he has been talking about "the laying on of hands" and Wankel
engines in the last few days.........


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to
read.
I'll give one a miss.

How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?

I have acrobat 6 and it has checkers on the background.


---
--

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:09:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to
read.
I'll give one a miss.

How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?

Well he has been talking about "the laying on of hands" and Wankel
engines in the last few days.........

LOL. Boiled beef and carrots, boiled beef and carrots....


---
--

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

IMM wrote:

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .

"IMM" wrote in
:


A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.


And also add to the cost and weight...


Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.


I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.


If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.


There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).


Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting fuel
consumption, such as rev counters. Why does anyone need to know how much
the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it is
revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management system
cuts it out.


True. Fashion accessory.

An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too


IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for
parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed
them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins
into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up,
quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.

, as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French don't
want to know them.


Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost,
of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven
windows and sunroofs?

No. I don't suppose you do.

Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open
window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern
efficient aircon?

No, I don't suppose you do.


Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the
losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?

You probably could work tat one out..



Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?



Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to
get colling out of it.

Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.






---
--

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:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:



So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily

than

with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency

per

square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is

usually

simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a

system.


Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be
applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

Efficiency is a measure of the efficacy against a theoretically perfect
system,

That is the beginning of a circular argument.


of something doing the job it is designed to do. As normally
measured by how much it produces of the desired output versus how much
input it needs.

If we for example take solar energy, it is not menaingful to say that
e.g. civering every roof in lonbdon with a .3% efficient solar panel is
inefficient, if the cost of so doing would actually be less than
building and running an equivalent power station over the same .
timescales.

One could argue that in terms of various resources one or the other is
more efficient.

The power station takes up less space, but uses more fossil fuel. The
electric panel is inefficient in overall thermodynamic terms, but maybe
more efficient in the actual use of sunlight, since we don't have to
wait a couple of million years for the trees to turn back into
oil...The


power station has far less labour content involved, but perhaps uses
more materials.

uppose fo an instant that we cracked fusion power. Who cares about
efficiency, since the actual waste products - helium and heat - are
totally insignificant in a global context. At that point electcity
would
become the cheapest form of energy, subject to no taxes at all
probably,
and we would all be driving electric cars, and heating our houses
electrically, immediately :-)

Thanks for the homily.

I agree that in general usage, "efficiecy" is bandied around with gay
abandon. However, the discussion about solar panels was a
scientific/engineering one. To talk about "efficiency per unit area" in
such a context is pure nonsense.


What balls!

I reserve a part of a roof of 20ft x 10ft, 200 squ foot. I put in flat
plate collectors, I get n volume of solar heated hot water on a certain
isolation at a certain time of year. I put in the same 200 squ foot
Thermomax solar collectors. I get n x 2 volume of hot water on the same
isolation and certain time of year. For each squ foot of roof the
Themomax
is 100% more efficient. Is that clear?

I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof, twice the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a 25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.


---
--

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:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible,
despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby.

If every power staionin the world was nuclear we would be in big trouble
getting rid of the waste.

Might cost less than trying to get rid of all the CO2 tho.

And even that contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.

The human element. When it breaks down, big, big problems. Best forgot
nuclear as cleaner, lower tech alternatives are around right now.

The biggest single disaters have been caused by other things.

Warped logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. What you are saying is that
the odd nuclear disaster affecting millions of people is acceptable ......
because other disasters have been worse.

Earthquake in Iran, 30,000 dead. Smilar erahquake in San francisco with
modern building regs, 3 dead.

Lets make a nuclear disaster and all join in. The earthquake was a human
failure. They knew it was am earthquake zone.

How many die when monsoons fail, or bangladesh gets flooded (again)
Strong evidnce to link with fossil fuel burning.

Fossil fuel burning can be drastically reduced by simple low tech means.

In short, the Nuclear power scenario stacks up to one or two accidents -
five mile island and chernobyl.

And Windscale in 1958...and others around the world.

Chernobyl was probably no more expensive
than an oil tanker sinking in terms of clean up.

100,000s are suffering long term effects from the fall out.

Fve mile island - I
forget, but it hasn't ruined the country.



---
--

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
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Martin Brown wrote:



Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but
it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...


Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.



I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.



Yes, I tend to agree with you.


The number of deaths per kilowatt hour which occur in the extraction and
processing of fossil fuels is a lot higher than the corresponding
number
for the extraction of uranium



I would not be surprised.


The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil fuel stations is vastly worse
than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly idea and should be forgotten.

The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible,
despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby. And even that
contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.

Yes, the arguments are kind of curious:-

"We mustn't use nuclear power because the waste it generates might after
a few hundred years cause a little environmental change in certain deep
caves or the bottom of the ocean, so we had better stick to natural gas
and oil and coal, which are running out, are absolutely known TO BE
causing MAJOR environmental impact, and WILL DEFINITELY affect the WHOLE
HUMAN RACE in a few years, extremely adversely".

The real reason is probably to limit the suppies of enriched uranium in
case some gets into the wrong hands...


Franz







---
--

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:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


As you may know, I have a little hobby.
Flying electric model aircraft.
Up to tow years ago there was no way
to even approach the power and
energy densities of a tank of fuel. There
is now. And its tipped the balance so that
applied to cars, it comes out damn near
equal overall in terms of power and range
to weight of a tank of petrol and what is
needed to make it turn the wheels..

I can buy all I need to use this
technology NOW.


So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and
performance.


They CAN be. One allegedly is.


Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are
cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating
more
electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going
to
produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not
to
mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.



Yes, but the alternatives are worse. At least the potential to generate
electricty from non fossil sources exists: hydrogen cars still need
hydrogen, and have neither the range, nor indeed the possibility to
generate the hydrogen cheaply except by electricity. The battery wins
over the hydrogen car. Period.

Whatever is dirty in a power statin is dirtier in a car. If you can go
froim fuel to power in a car at a certain level ofeffciency, then
certainly you can go from fuel to power, and electricity at least as
efficiently and at least at same level of pollution in a power station.
In fact its possible to do better when the weight limitations of car
engines are removed.


Otherwise we would have to look at biofuels - methanol, biodiesl etc. -
and hope that the economics of production make more sense.

I don;t think they do.

Deserts are waiting to be farmed.


---
--

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