Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.
Bob Hobden wrote:
No it's not! everything I've written above is true. Ignoring the data, if you simply look at the petrol consumption of ,say, a 1600cc car 30 years ago ( about 26mpg) My 30 year old triumph spitfire in stock form at leagal speeds would do better than 40mpg. It didnt after I had tuned it up to 110bhp, admittedly :-) BMC A and B series engines were also capable of well in excess of 40mpg. Ford 1600 engines were alwasy carp its true, but at least you coudl tweak em up to ridiculous power easily. Fuel injection has been the greatest benefit. and compare it with a modern engine ( about 40+mpg) you will find significant improvements in efficiency which also does relate to the pollution produced, even without catalists in the exhaust system. The fact that these modern cars also have much more inside them consuming power proves my point further. And elecric fans, to redice power loss on cooling fans. However, we now use fatter tyres (more rolling resistance) and travel fatser, and in general spend so much time in congestion that average fuel consumption is in fact worse. Probably due to the significant rise in the use of Diesel engines (in cars) which produce lots of small particules (soot) which get into our lungs and clog them up. Particle Traps are on their way to cure this problem, I think it's one of the French manufacturers that is already installing them. I too have developed Asthma in the last 10 years. I totally agree on that one. Catalytic convertors work extremely well in places like califirnia, where temperatures are higher and the big problem was unburnt hydrocarbons producing smog. They arer wuite good in countries where average jorneys are long enough for them to get up to temp as well. Not so here, and the stuff in fuel now to repalce lead, is highly toxic and carcinogenic ...diesels are disgusting. They nee filters and catalysts too. Nobody has pointed out a flaw at all, to me they just show they don't know about Fuel Cells, their possibilities, uses and how fast the technology is advancing so there is little chance of agreement on this topic. No, ther are more issues at stake than lung irritation. On the global warming front, you are still using fossil fuels with fuel cells. I attended a 'clean energy' conference some years back attended by represntatives from teh finacial, oil, and automotive industries. The oil men want fuel cells, because it menas they still get to sell oil. The automotive men wanted hydrigen, because it meant they could still sell cars. The financial lot, shook their heads and walked out early. "If its sll tio be enfirced by legistlation, the government will ensure its barely profitable" I asked the one question - "what is the most energy efficient way of transporting a ton overland" "Railways" muttered someone from the back...and that was it. Not one preson in that room was actually interested in what was the ultimately sanest transport policy. "Not my problem". All these latrenatives are being touted by groupps with vested interests in preserving their installed base of manufacturing capability. Ther IS no installed base of electric ras manufactures: Up till a couple of years ago there wasn't a suitable battery. There is now. Oh, and with power stations also going over to the use of Fuel Cells pollution from them will reduce too. :-) No argument there. And windmills, and tide power and hydroelectric and burning biomass and burning rubbish - especially paper, and CHP and and and...a million ways to make power that cannot be put in a car. 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. I can't buy a fuel cell. I am sure that I weill be able to buy both in a few years time, BUT with fuel cells still using FUEL I am convinced teh electric will win ot, because you can generate electricity inso many more ways than "burning" FUEL. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Moss/Lichen on roof | United Kingdom | |||
Moss/Lichen on roof (was:victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?) | United Kingdom | |||
Moss/Lichen on roof (was:victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?) | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] Air pollution (Lichen or knot) | Bonsai |