"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:05:27 GMT, Steve wrote:

In article , David Bradley
writes
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:20:50 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Taking 9kW to produce 1kW of useful energy is a fascinating concept
and interesting to note that refueling arrangments may have to be
placed where there is no perceived dangers to the local community.
That means non revenue earning journeys on top of an inability to have
enough onboard fuel storage for a normal daily duty cycle.

Your figures are wrong. And so are your facts - there is as much danger
in hydrogen as in LPG, they are equally volatile

No Sir, facts that were borne out in Vancouver who have sensibly opted
to purchase trolleybuses. If you want chapter and verse I will
happily provide it. Interesting that LPG refilling facilities can be
found on numerous forecourts but the refuelling plant proposed for
Hornchurch was refused planning permission, citing safety reasons, by
the London borough of Having. A fact you could look up.

LPG is significantly less volatile than Hydrogen, though I accept that
refuelling facilities for either are about as dangerous as each other.
Vancouver is not really a fair comparison because Vancouver has a
significant infrastructure investment in its substantial trolleybus network
already present. London has facilities for neither trolleybuses nor fuel
cell buses present, so for specifying a new build system a different set of
economic criteria must be considered. Personally I would favour
trolleybuses over fuel cell buses, primarily because the fixed
infrastructure along the routes gives a more public image of a service even
when no vehicle is present.

Robin