h
"Oliver Keating" wrote in
message ...

There is an old expression - "waste not, want not"

But it appears in our consumer society where everyone is going
nuts with
"buy, buy, buy," it is the fashion to have a new car every
couple of years.
Just as with everything else, we buy, we throw away, we buy we
throw away.
The cycle will only come to an end when we abruptly run out of
resources.

Not often heard these days, but many years ago, someone coined
the term 'Effluent society'. It's even more appropriate now,
than it was at the time.

We waste things on a horrendous scale these days. Many scrapped,
not because they no longer work, or are uneconomic to repair,
but perfectly good items, simply because they are not the
latest, they feel like a change, or they don't fit in with the
latest colour scheme, etc, etc.

A neighbour had 3 fiited kitchens installed, over a period of 5
years.
Each time most of what came out went down the tip. Even
perfectly good Cookers, fridges, and washing machines etc. Not
to mention all the cabinets, and work surfaces.
A few items were sold, but unless they went within a few days,
off they went.

I tend to keep things, especially household items, until I can
no longer repair them.
Either because the spares are no longer obtainable, or the
spares simply become too expensive.

Natural resources though, will continue long into the future.
ATM we are still using those that are reasonably easy to
extract. Oil being one example.
Even when a field is considered exhausted using current methods,
there is still plenty left which at present prices is too
uneconomic to extract, but the technology exists to do it. Which
will happen if oil prices rise high enough.

As for coal. Still plenty of that worldwide. We as a nation have
loads of it.
600 years worth, the last time I recall a figure being
mentioned.

No. Resources will not run out. At least not in the foreseeable
future, but many will become very expensive.
Mike.

Tom Anderson wrote:

Ultimately, it all comes down to where you're going to get the energy
from; hydrogen is a fundamentally synthetic fuel, so you need to supply
electricity, hydrocarbons or light (if you're a photosynthesist) to make
it [1]. IMHO, the only practical carbon-neutral approach would be to use
nuclear electricity; i doubt that photosynthesis or renewable power plants
would be able to supply enough power.

They probably would, but only at certain times. The nice thing about
using electricity to produce hydrogen is that you can do it at the time
the electricity's cheapest. One of the main criticisms of wind power is
that it usually produces electricity at the wrong time. Hydrogen
generation when there's a surplus could be part of the answer.

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:
Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

The trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to extract it
from water or other compounds.

The trouble with hydrogen is that it is manufactured from
hydrocarbons, not by electrolysis of water. Thus using hydrogen as a
fuel actually increases CO2 emissions compared to burning those
hydrocarbons in the engine.

It's yet another con, expensive, impractical and achieves absolutely
**** all. I heard that London transport has wasted three million quid
on purchasing electric buses from Daimler-Chrysler than operate from
"hydrogen". That's hydrogen as in "methane", natural gas stored in
tanks in the roof of the bus which is then catalytically split to CO2
and H2 witht he CO2 being emittted to atmosphere. The lying *******s
then describe this as "zero emission".

The TfL press release says quite categorically "The fuel-cell system turns
the gas into electrical power and the only emission is water", but
http://www.fuel-cell-bus-club.com (which is referenced by TfL's press
release) says that the fuel cells "are fed with natural gas", and talks
about *reduced* emissions.

I've e-mailed TfL asking for clarification on this point, and asking
specifically whether CO2 is produced by the buses. I'll post any reply
here.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)s


The gas used is hydrogen, not methane. It is held in tanks in the roof. TFL
did not purchase the buses. They were provided by external financing and my
own employers are part of the trial that is also taking place in other UK
cities.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
W K wrote:

b) lets see your born-haber cycle calculations.

You don't need them:

Hydrogen 33.3 kWh/kg
Methane 13.9 kWh/kg
Gasoline 12.7 kWH/kg

Hence if you use H2 as a fuel and derive it from methane (which is the
best feedstock at present) you will need to burn hydrogen equivalent to
1.7 kg of methane to do the same work as burning 1 kg of methane.

Where on earth do you get that from?
Your approach might work if you could give precise H from methane yields
(real ones)

Congratulations on supporting the energy economy of the madhouse. A
hydrogen "economy" looks set to reduce the mpg of the average car from
35 to 14 mpg.

Perhaps you should have read my post to the end.
The whole idea of a hydrogen economy is for it not to be produced from
hydrocarbons out of the ground.

Which always looked like very long distance future pie in the sky.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
W K wrote:

Which of course, you would ignore if you claim AGM isn't happening
(which
you have done,

No I haven't, but it's not unusual for you to misrepresent me, so why
change old habits eh?

AGW then.
Perhaps there is something subtle missing of precisely what you believe
about this one.

You have posted that you think it is very likely to just be a job creation
scheme.
and ...
"*IF* global warming turned out to be anthropogenic (no evidence yet that it
is"

OK, does not _claim_ it isn't happening but infers very strongly that you
are a skeptic.

You have never stated clearly your position (so if I cofuse your position
with others around here thats not surprising) , you have the opportunity to
do so.

In article , Oliver Keating wrote:
If second hand car prices were kept a little higher, then
people would keep cars longer before scrapping them. It only
takes a £200 repair to a 10year old car and its off down the
scrap heap - what a waste.

I think that one of the troubles is that it can be a lot more
than £200. My first car, a 1962 Mini, was far from reliable but
cheap and easy to fix. My more recent cars, all bought new,
have been 100% reliable but looking under the bonnets confirms
that this is now dealer territory only. A read of Honest John's
Q&A in the Saturday Telegraph suggests that more than a few
people are picking up near £1000 bills for cam belts, catalysts
electronics and other things on 4-5 year old cars.

--
Tony Bryer

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message

In article , Oliver Keating wrote:
If second hand car prices were kept a little higher, then
people would keep cars longer before scrapping them. It only
takes a £200 repair to a 10year old car and its off down the
scrap heap - what a waste.

I think that one of the troubles is that it can be a lot more
than £200. My first car, a 1962 Mini, was far from reliable but
cheap and easy to fix. My more recent cars, all bought new,
have been 100% reliable but looking under the bonnets confirms
that this is now dealer territory only. A read of Honest John's
Q&A in the Saturday Telegraph suggests that more than a few
people are picking up near £1000 bills for cam belts, catalysts
electronics and other things on 4-5 year old cars.

My first car was also a simple 1962 model (a Mk I Cortina), and when the big
ends failed in the mid 1970s I was able to get a remanufactured engine for
all of £60 fitted (and all done the next day). That lasted till the car was
written off by the person I sold it to. Other parts like wheels, tyres and a
new clutch were similarly cheap and could be fitted by the smallest garage
(or me if I was feeling brave).

I now own a car with a fiendishly complex 32V V8 which has always performed
perfectly (I sometimes even get up to 30mpg on motorway trips). I certainly
wouldn't dream of doing any more than replacing fluids, but fortunately it's
very well built and superbly reliable.

But a friend's car has a larger version of the same engine, that was
recently ruined when he drove through a deep puddle, because water got
sucked into the cylinders. That cost a cool £10,000 to repair -- and he was
told that he'd got off lightly. Other drivers of similar cars that day had
even more expensive damage as the wiring looms were also ruined. His car was
quite new and of course it was all fixed as good as new (but he may avoid
deep puddles in the future, and so will I).

But suppose it had been over ten years old? It would hardly be worth
spending £10,000 on a car whose value after the repair was less than
£10,000.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
W K wrote:

OK, does not _claim_ it isn't happening

Your apology is accepted.

No, that was only one of your statement.

A strong hint that you are an extreme skeptic.
If you will not state your position, then you can hardly expect people to
notice the difference between extreme skeptic, knocking it in all possible
ways, and someone who doesn't believe it at all.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
W K wrote:

Hence if you use H2 as a fuel and derive it from methane (which is the
best feedstock at present) you will need to burn hydrogen equivalent
to
1.7 kg of methane to do the same work as burning 1 kg of methane.

Where on earth do you get that from?

A knowledge of organic chemistry, something you were preening yourself
on a few moments ago.

No, not organic chemistry actually, get your branches right!
A few workings would allow me to figure out what you are on about.
I haven't looked up the reaction to be honest.

(and preen? you were talking "energy rich bonds" ... a very dodgy and old
fashioned concept)

Your approach might work if you could give precise H from methane yields
(real ones)

The cases I have given are best possible yields assuming that it is
possible to convert methane or octane to hydrogen with no loss of
hydrogen. This is of course impossible.

I'd have thought it was an equilibrium process anyway, so you'd still need
to know real live figures.

Congratulations on supporting the energy economy of the madhouse. A
hydrogen "economy" looks set to reduce the mpg of the average car from
35 to 14 mpg.

Perhaps you should have read my post to the end.
The whole idea of a hydrogen economy is for it not to be produced from
hydrocarbons out of the ground.

You can have whatever unworkable pipe-dream you wish.

No, read to the end ...
(and btw I was really just picking at the corners of your arguments, which
always seem like gut overreactions to any sort of attempt to make a car that
isnt a normal petrol one)

However you will
ahve to deal with reality from time to time. Even the most rabid
advocates of a hydrogen economy are not promising that it will be in
place within 25 years. And even then, they expect the hydrogen to be
derived from fossil fuel.

Which always looked like very long distance future pie in the sky.

Indeed, so why waste energy and money demonstrating that hydrogen
"works" where "works" means "is vastly inferior to and even worse for
the economy and environment than current fuels"?

Ah, so you did bother reading to the end.
I'll agree that H cars are not useful at the moment, but if you wait 25
years and have nothing ready you'll be in the ****.

If companies do no research (and these things will be tiny parts of their
budgets), they get left in the past quite quickly.

"W K" wrote in message
...

Ah, so you did bother reading to the end.
I'll agree that H cars are not useful at the moment, but if you wait 25
years and have nothing ready you'll be in the ****.

If companies do no research (and these things will be tiny parts of their
budgets), they get left in the past quite quickly.

25 years ago we were doing work on coal gasification, on the premise that
both oil and natural gas would have been used up by the late 1990s, and that
we would need to use the Fischer-Trosch process for road fuel. I still
prefer the idea of bio-diesel.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/