Safe Speed Forums

As a serious green campaigner and a conservationist I have been interested in alternative power supplies for many years. During those years I have watched internal combustion engines improve in efficiency and cleanliness in ways that would not have been thought possible just a few years ago. The fuels used have been cleaned up with low-lead and low sulphur versions being the norm now and many cars have lean-burn engines and catalytic converters fitted that clean up the exhaust in many ways. I worry that maybe we cannot go much further in the development of cleaner I/C engines and the recent introduction of duel-fuel cars seems to support this worry.

I am sure that if we can get away from mineral-oil-burning engines and onto bio-oil burners, gas-burners and fuel-cell electric cars we will finally stop killing each-other with the fumes from all of our road, rail, sea and air-craft. ( mind you I cannot see a fuel-cell driven Jumbo-Jet yet ! ).

If the oil industry ever let us go down that path I am sure that we can REALLY clean up our filthy internal-combustion engines and do the other road-users and everybody else for that matter a great favour.

To this end I notice a number of full-scale factories in my native Scotland producing bio-diesel from vegetable oil and the appearance of Auto-gas pumps in filling stations is now become quite common.

I have been a supporter of the fuel-cell for the past ten years or more and have noted how the development of these clean power-plants has progressed even in the face of great pressure from the oil companies.

Today I saw an article telling us that Honda have now designed a WATER-driven engine that is to be put into the FCX model. They say that it will be mass-produced by the end of next year.

Of course the car will not be "water" driven; in fact it will be Hydrogen driven where the fuel-cell will use the Hydrogen gas to generate electricity, heat and steam as a by-product...NO POLLUTION.

Great eh ?

I was going to burn bio-diesel in my PT Cruiser, but I might wait until the new Honda comes out and go electric instead. ( The car is expected to do 100MPH.....is that FAST enough for all of you petrol-heads ? )

Find out more about the Honda FCX here: http://www.hondacorporate.com/fcx/

And here's a photo of it too:

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

As you are someone that is a self confessed green supporter, why do you drive a car with terrible fuel consumption.

Gas was looking like a good idea, until it started to catch on.

Then the Government slapped some extra tax on it last year.

As for your 100 MPH Honda, at what Price and why.

Vehicle emissions have yet to be proved to have any impact on the environment.

I also wonder why you chose to post this here?

It seems a bit out of topic.

_________________
Steve

"Out of topic" ?

The posting was attached to the "road safety" part of the forum !

My PT Cruiser with it's 2.2 common-rail turbo diesel engine get's nearly fifty MPG....That's good in my book. AND if I burn bio-diesel in it the emissions level will be cut by a factor of ten.

Don't tell me that you believe that all of the vehicles on the roads don't add to the total amount of pollution at ground level. Only the ones with their heads in the sand believe that !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

<<Don't tell me that you believe that all of the vehicles on the roads don't add to the total amount of pollution at ground level. Only the ones with their heads in the sand believe that !>>

So you have proof that vehicle emissions have an effect on the enviroment.

With those facts, you are truly outstanding, as noone else has them.

Emissions & road safety, cannot find the link.

Green people regard, diesal as the most offensive. Bit they are economical in terms of running cost.

<<AND if I burn bio-diesel >>

Do you?

_________________
Steve

If the government really believe that, why do they insist on making us drive around in 3rd gear?

Actually, I've seen the evidence from the UN climate change commission to show just that. Although they appear to have tried very hard to bias the reports towards the "green" point of view, one of the orginal fuel protestors defragmented the reports and recompiled them to show that this country's record fuel taxation is pure greed on the part of the Exchequer.

Accepted that vehicles cause very localised pollution (i.e. in close proximity to busy roads) but otherwise:

• the major pollutant (greenhouse gas) from IC engines is carbon dioxide, particularly so since improved emission control
• worldwide, only about 6% of carbon dioxide emissions come from non-natural sources
• road transport accounts for less than 2% of that
• UK contribution to pollution is less than 1%

So, UK road transport accounts for less than 0.06 x 0.02 X 0.01, or about one thousandth of one percent of worldwide carbon dioxide. From that, it should be clear that if all road transport in UK stopped tomorrow, there would be no discernible impact to climate change.

Ironically, power stations are the biggest polluters. Yet the "greenies" clamour for electric power to replace the internal combustion engine. Very little energy worldwide doesn't come from fossil fuel and even hydrogen cells mostly get their power from fossil fuels that fuel power stations to provide electricity with which to electrolyse water to produce the hydrogen.

_________________
Will

Hi there Papamau - you met me under a combined rant with the rest of this family some time back on another forum where they continue to "torment twazaks!" as they call it. Yeah - I know they are big time "saddos!" (The Chief Anorak you were clashing most of the time with has told me to say Hi! )

So - you still believe the muesli munchers' mush? Large animals generate more danger to gaps in ozone layer in form of methane than gas guzzlin' cars (or so I read in cousin vet's professional rag ). So - should we put down cows, goats and other multi-stomached beasts on account of their flatulence and digestive problems which appear to create some stinky pollution problems?

And if you really want to know true cause of asthmatic attacks in youngsters - air fresheners, deodorants and strong heady perfumes are at root of most of it! Also preoccupation with zapping all known lurgies - no natural resistance is built up! (Am blood and lurgy specialist - anjd look at all data to establish and identify this sort of thing! ) Allow my kids a certain amount of leeway in being kids and getting mucky! But here is not place to discuss it - this is where I let off steam and think car and speed!

Probably not, no. If the car has sufficient power to do 100mph, then it probably outputs a similar amount to mine (~45bhp). There have been many occasions when this isn't enough, particularly with regards to overtaking. In fact, an underpowered car can be just as dangerous as an extremely powerful sports car - although in a different manner, of course.

As for the technology itself, it's still in its extreme infancy. I'd be surprised to see a car powered by hydrogen that actually gets the job done (and is affordable) within the next ten years.

Also, you say that burning hydrogen is very clean, but where does the hydrogen come from? The obvious source is extraction from water - but extracting it from water takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Probably the national grid - and most of the power in that is from fossil fuels...

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

No pollution? They emit steam, and water vapour is a far more important "greenhouse gas" than CO2 or methane. Steam is nothing like as innocent as the industry would have us believe.

Interesting that you mention Catalytic converters.
A friend of mine bought a car with a cat fitted, and was most upset when I told her that her car pushed out more pollution than my non cat car.
I did up to about 15 miles each way to work mainly on dual carriageway, she did about 1.5 miles each way to work mainly in town traffic travelling slowly.
Until a Cat is warmed up to it's working temperature, it pumps out as much, if not more pollution than a car not fitted with a cat.
Also, she was most put out when I told her she needed to take the her car up the motorway at NSL speed at least once a week to clean the exhaust out otherwise her cat would stop working.
BTW, my car was 10 years old, and never had to have the engine adjusted to pass the MOT emissions test, despite having been minimally serviced.
You can still get the H2S smell from Cats.
And, how much heavy metal pollution is created during the manufacture of a Cat?

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I work for an oil company, and they ARE involved in alternative power source research. They also have already adopted many of the clean fuels recommendations prior to them becoming law. I do get rather annoyed at oil companies being painted as these great Satanic collaborators responsible for all social ills. There is a huge amount of money going into making existing fuels as clean as possible. Likewise the automotive industry is making great strides to develop ever more efficient engines, dual fuel and hybrid vehicles. Electric cars are all well and good, but where does the power come from? Wind farms upset environmentalists because apparently they deface the countryside, nuclear power is out becasue, hey, it's an atomic bomb and we'll all die the minute anything goes wrong, so what are we left with? Solar power? In the UK? We'd be ok if there was drizzle power. The only thing left is fossil fuel. Your little electric car may well not pollute locally, but you'll need to charge it. All you're doing is redistributing the pollution.

Another (semi) serious point about electric cars - they're very quiet. How do you think that will effect road safety in urban areas? If pedestrians don't notice me in my noisy infernal combustion engined machine, what chance have they got if I'm driving a milk float?! What are we going to do, play loud engine noise through external speakers? Oh, that's noise pollution. I'm sure everyone would be happy to cycle or kite surf to work or the shops, but unfortunately reality gets in the way. People don't always live close enough to places of employment/leisure, or their area has very poor transport links. Why are so many out of town business parks and shopping centres being built without any decent train or bus links? I'm lucky enough to live a short train ride away from where I work, yet my previous job, despite being a mere 8 miles away had woeful public transport links, so I literally had to drive. Getting the bus would have taken at least 3 times as long. Another point - that bus runs whether full or (more likely) practically empty. My car only runs when I need it.

I'm sick of "green" automatically meaning "anti car", when the automotive industry has and is pumping billions of pounds into cleaner and cleaner fuels and vehicles. Why just single out the car? What pressure have you put on mobile phone and computer manufacturers? How many PCs and mobiles are simply thrown away because they're out of fashion? What a waste! Do you what's in those things? How about the bottled water industry? Where do you think all that plastic comes from? Oh the irony of being told you're leading a healthy lifestyle whilst creating a mountain of plastic waste.

If you've ever been behind a diesel vehicle on a motorcycle whether car,bus or truck, you'll know diesel is the dirtiest fuel going, especially if it's raining and the fumes are aerosoled into droplets. I used to end a day on the circuit in central London looking like I'd finished a day at the coal face and shaking at the thought of spilled diesel on roundabouts and corners.
If Dodgy Ken is so concerned about a clean environment he should force busses, taxis and London registered diesel cars and lorries to change to LPG.

On THIS forum you all reacted JUST as I thought you would !

I would have been disappointed if you hadn't !

I will not try to put all of your comments into mechanical "quotes" as I find that a rather slow way to converse. I WILL try to comment nevertheless on the more important points.

As I have studied fuel-cells for a number of years I know that they have different ways of dealing with different fuels including LPG, and petrol to name just two. The most efficient of these cells use water from a reservoir and battery-power for electrolosis, ( which is incidentally re-charge once the vehicle is running at optimum ), to split H20 into it's two component elements. These elements are then re-combined in the fuel-cell where they are "burned" to produce masses of electricity for motive-power and steam as a by-product. NO Hydrocarbon by-products therefore NO pollution !

Water-vapour, ( steam ) is NOT a pollutant and it does not , ( or will not ), poison the atmosphere after fuel-cell vehicles have become common. Consider that 7/10ths of the surface of the world is water and that most of the animals and plants on the planet are either made of water or cannot survive without water. ( This, puts the hydrocarbon pollution in correct context as we do not need hydrocarbon wastes in our air and in fact they are deadly poisons in almost any concentrations ).

I agree that even the cleanest diesels, ( and great strides have been made in producing efficient diesel engines these days ), are pollutors due to their sooty particulates being expelled into the air, but if anyone stops to think for a second about all of the exhaust fumes, ( no matter how clean they are ), that are produced from the 31 Million registered vehicles on Britains roads alone one cannot dare to argue that the air is not dirtier because of these vehicles.

CATs DO work when they are fully warmed, ( the only point here really ), even if CATS are not perfect or always as good as when they are new !

"The car is NOT fast enough at 100mph".....

This is only because there are other cars that are going faster and have more available power. In context, a car that is the most powerful and the fastest at 100MPH is the safest car on the road if there is nothing more powerful or faster. As there IS more powerful and more speedier vehicles on the road the 100MPH max' car must find it's niche in the speed-stakes AND stay there if it wants to be relatively safe !

( Strange how this road-pollution thread has been driven round to be a speed-pollution subject once again on this forum ) !

Mad Moggie.....

I DON'T plan to get caught up in one of the "Bogush" rants here, even although I am sure that he would be VERY comfortable in this nice warm bath too !

Mind you I am not going to argue against the pollution that comes from the internal-combustion engine and then supprt the pollution that comes from aerosol-cans or the rear-ends of ruminants.

Pollution is pollution wherever it comes from !

Now...here comes the lecture.....

Sit up at the back and pay attention !

If it was not for the energy-hungry and wasteful humans on this planet taking and burning fossil-fuels from the earth in the form of trees, oil, gas, and coal, the earth would be able to easily maintain a balance of nature in it's manufacture of oxygen and its recycling of Carbon-Dioxide and Nitrogen - and other exhaust gasses - , but nature is struggling to keep the atmosphere clean as we are putting out more exhaust than nature can metabolise safely. BY this we are slowly but surely upsetting the balance of nature. If we do not lift our heads out of the sand and pay attention to this we are going to leave a ruined world for our kids and their kids.

THAT...my friends....in a nutshell, is the mesage from The Greens. Ignore it at your peril !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Climate change occurred before mankind.

Nothing we can do can change it, it is a completly natural occurance.

The facts of history have proved that.

_________________
Steve

Volcanoes, methane release from the ocean floor, organic matter breakdown etc. have no effect either I suppose. What self-righteous clap-trap. To think I used to believe this ....stuff.

Catalytic converters - a perfect example of how the well funded petroleum industry managed to have implemented legislation designed entirely for their benefit while duping a well meaning but ignorant pressure lobby (the environmentalists) into believing it was a good thing for their cause.

Catalytic converters actualy killed stone dead a move to reduce the amount of fuel we use, and here's how...

A little known fact about catalytic converters is that they tie the fuel efficiency of an engine to a specific mark ie. an air to fuel ratio of approximately 15:1 as this is the optimum mixture required for the catalytic converter to work.

Before catalysts became compulsory, engine designers were working on motors that could run acceptably and felixbly on less fuel, increasing the air to fuel ratio to 20:1 and more - the so called 'lean burn' engines. Many of these designers were British, which led of course to Margaret Thatcher's famous TV inverview where she rejected catalytic converters and hailed these lean-burn designs (put your political opinions aside for a moment and accept the woman was right!!!).

Moreover, catalytic converters themselves increase the fuel consumption of a vehicle by on average 10% due to inefficiencies caused by the pressure increases the catalyst creates in the exhaust system, plus the energy wasted by the converter itself as heat.

The best way to reduce pollution would have been to reduce the amount of fuel being burnt, but the pursuit of this goal is now lost thanks to narrow mindedness and ignorance.

You really don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, do you?

Trees are fossil fuels???
Nitrogen is an exhaust gas????
CO2 comes principally from exhausts??? (don't you ever exhale?)
Nature recycles nitrogen???
Oxygen doesn't comprise one-third of the atmosphere and CO2 doesn't comprise a mere 300ppm, therefore we'll all suffocate because nature cannot manufacture oxygen from CO2 quickly enough????

Oh, and why don't you ask yourself how us humans survived before we started burning fossil fuels. Ask yourself what the world was like then.

Regards
Peter

Papaumau wrote:

" The most efficient of these cells use water from a reservoir and battery-power for electrolosis, ( which is incidentally re-charge once the vehicle is running at optimum ), to split H20 into it's two component elements. These elements are then re-combined in the fuel-cell where they are "burned" to produce masses of electricity for motive-power..."

Are the laws of thermodynamics no more?

Amateur

arthurdent

PS> the responses to your post so far have been generally representative of the scientific concensus (ever read New Scientist)

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Lol, you have a point! The suggested way of generating power makes about as much sense as burning petrol then converting the exhaust gas back into more petrol, thereby creating energy!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

God save me and the rest of the people on earth from pedants !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558