"DavidR" wrote in message

"JNugent" wrote
DavidR wrote...

This stuff is not inevitable. The thread may be bemoaning how
complex cars are and how they are scrapped when beyond economic
repair but it is what the punters want.

...but only because that is all the "punters" can afford.

If, after accidental damage, a car can be restored to its market
value of (say) £1500 only by the expenditure of (say) £2000 on
repairs, the owner will *waste* the £500 over-spend, with no hope of
recovering it (unless he somehow feels that a sentimental attachment
to the car is worth £500 to him) if he chooses to have the repairs
done.

Agreed. But consider how often are we told by the likes of Quentin
Wilson to avoid poverty spec models because thay are harder to sell.
Is there some point in the ownership chain where owning the poverty
spec becomes an actual bargaining advantage?

What I can never be sure of is whether people buy the toys for
themselves or for an eye to (or fear of) resale value. I think the
fashion for sunroofs some years ago were an obvious contender for the
most useless accessory ever.

Some accessories lose value very quickly and can have a negative value in
the after market, body kits being an obvious example. Special paints jobs
can also reduce value. High-powered petrol-engined cars cost more when new
than diesels, but their extra fuel consumption and higher insurance costs
probably reduce their long term residual value to below that of a diesel --
low running costs are more important than performance to the typical private
buyer of a ten year old vehicle, whereas performance is important to many
new car buyers (specially if someone else is paying for the maintenance,
fuel and insurance).

Sunroofs were more popular than air-conditioning because they were more
visible to the neighbours, but I suspect most people have now learned that
air-conditioning is more useful, even in England. But I suspect a/c has less
value in the later years of the vehicle when it needs more maintenance. I
also wonder if airbags help in the aftermarket? Safety now does help sell
new cars, but does a buyer of a ten-year old car care if air bags are fitted
(specially as they may not work by then anyway)?

I don't know if aluminium bodies help or hinder the long-term life of the
vehicle -- they eliminate rust and reduce fuel consumption, but are also
expensive to repair after an accident.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Jon Porter wrote:

One of my clients is *the* leader in the development of small fuel
cells. Even they are not so stupid as to claim that they will be on
the
market by the end of this year.

Would that be AEA Technology, Hitachi Industries, Siemens, Mercedes,
BMW,
NASA. Maybe General Motors, Toyota, Ford, (plus a couple of very
impressive
East European companies who I will not try and spell!)
I'm sure they have all put all those millions in just to see it wasted
but
of course you know better than them.

No, none of those.

And I'm sure that if they don't manage to launch their product this year
(which they won't) that they won't have wasted their research money.
They should be able to sell their product eventually.

You really should read what's written, not respond to what you think was
written.

--

I was responding to your claim to have a "client" that is *the* leader in
the development of small fuel cells. In view of the amount of research
taking place and the money to be made I think I can confidently say that not
even the companies involved, let alone you, know who *the* leader is in this
field of technological development.
I notice you have failed to respond to the other points made, in my
previous post, concerning alternative methods of hydrogen production. (for
the larger cells of course), revisions in vehicle design, etc. I'm sure
"your client" would be aware of these processes, IF they were *the* leader
in this field and aware of fuel cell development generally and not just the
smaller ones which tend to use methanol of course.
However in response to your rebuttal of Steve's claim at least one
manufacturer IS claiming to be going to market in 2004 with a fuel cell
powered laptop, three others to my knowledge are claiming by 2005. Life of
8-10 hours per charge, cost anticipated to be about 20% more than
conventional batteries. The first mentioned has already shipped a batch of a
thousand or so for market testing, and it's only January! Perhaps your
*client* needs to get a move on.

Steve Firth wrote:

Jon Porter wrote:

[unsnip]
| | As pointed out elesewhere in this thread, when dealing with emerging
| | technologies
it is well to keep a more open mind rather than put forward a
rigid point of view

"If only you believed" eh?

Even if you believe that it's unlikely to ever become commercially
viable, that does not excuse your assumption that hydrogen generation
will continue to be as environmentally inefficient as it currently is.

as well as rubbishing/trying to discourage others from
pursuing the research.

I'm not trying to dissuade anyoen from research. However farcical
publicity stunts without any relevant end application such as these
crazy bus scheme do nothing positive.

Why do you not consider running buses on hydrogen to be a "relevant end
application"?

It's not research,

Does this mean you think that the results of this trial won't lead to
either a better design of hydrogen bus or an abandonment of the idea?

all it is is cynical marketing at its worst.

What IYO makes it "cynical"? Do you regard every publicity stunt as so?

If such attitudes prevailed in the 1960s we'd have
neither cheaper air travel or non stick frying pans.

We probably would by now. Many of the most important discoveries come
from basic research rather than R&D.

Utter ********. If any body proposes something with as far reaching
consequences as a change to hydrogen as a fuel then they had better damn
well ahve *done* their research.

And there's an awful lot of research to do. This is only a small part.

Not be asking the rest of us to follow along as an act of faith.

Just how exactly are the hydrogen bus builders doing that???

Fuel cells are a diversion from the real issues. Claiming hydrogen to be
"zero emission" is a dioversion from the facts and does the proponents
of a hydrogen economy no favours.

Apart from H2O and heat, there are no emissions - it will actually
reduce the amount of pollution in the air.

Hydrogen generation is a different issue. It can be zero emission and I
expect that in the future most of it will be. However, you should
remember that this is only a trial of the hydrogen buses. At this stage
it is best to get hydrogen from the most readily available source,
whatever that is.

Depresion wrote:

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote:

Where does the hydrogen come from?

Water most of our hydrogen is pre-oxidised at present, the conventional
way to split it is to use electricity that could be developed in an
environmentally friendly way, or we could throw away hundreds of years
worth of science and use billions of years worth of evolution and algae.
Algae happens to be very good at splitting hydrogen and oxygen using
little more than water space and a bit of "free" energy from the sun. All
that remains is the collection, storage and distribution of the gasses.

AIUI algae is a lot better at making diesel than it is at making
hydrogen! Plus diesel's a lot easier to collect. I'd expect diesel
production to be more economically efficient than hydrogen production
but I don't have the figures. Do you?

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:

Jon Porter wrote:

[unsnip]
| | As pointed out elesewhere in this thread, when dealing with emerging
| | technologies
it is well to keep a more open mind rather than put forward a
rigid point of view

"If only you believed" eh?

Even if you believe that it's unlikely to ever become commercially
viable, that does not excuse your assumption that hydrogen generation
will continue to be as environmentally inefficient as it currently is.

as well as rubbishing/trying to discourage others from
pursuing the research.

I'm not trying to dissuade anyoen from research. However farcical
publicity stunts without any relevant end application such as these
crazy bus scheme do nothing positive.




Why do you not consider running buses on hydrogen to be a "relevant end
application"?

It's not research,

Does this mean you think that the results of this trial won't lead to
either a better design of hydrogen bus or an abandonment of the idea?

all it is is cynical marketing at its worst.

What IYO makes it "cynical"? Do you regard every publicity stunt as so?

If such attitudes prevailed in the 1960s we'd have
neither cheaper air travel or non stick frying pans.

We probably would by now. Many of the most important discoveries come
from basic research rather than R&D.

Utter ********. If any body proposes something with as far reaching
consequences as a change to hydrogen as a fuel then they had better damn
well ahve *done* their research.

And there's an awful lot of research to do. This is only a small part.

Not be asking the rest of us to follow along as an act of faith.

Just how exactly are the hydrogen bus builders doing that???

Fuel cells are a diversion from the real issues. Claiming hydrogen to be
"zero emission" is a dioversion from the facts and does the proponents
of a hydrogen economy no favours.




Apart from H2O and heat, there are no emissions - it will actually
reduce the amount of pollution in the air.

Hydrogen generation is a different issue. It can be zero emission and I
expect that in the future most of it will be. However, you should
remember that this is only a trial of the hydrogen buses. At this stage
it is best to get hydrogen from the most readily available source,
whatever that is.

Precisely! Well said!

The problem with Mr. Firth, is that he has no idea who is trying to lecture,
something he tried to accuse me off a week or so back. As in other things he
was wrong.
His knowledge of the subject he is trying to lecture on is inadequate and
out of date. He carefully snips out replies that are inconvenient to his
argument, and in some of his answers tries to give credibilty by an
inflating his own importance. Words such as *clients* and *advisor* are
slipped in as if to impress. I'll be charitable, and put it down to the
exuberance of youth. His quoted source of information (The DfT report) is
partly available on the internet, but more importantly is still being
written and updated on a monthly basis. It is largely produced by AEA, an
organisation that I have close connections with. The internet version being
about three months behind the ones being seen by the DfT officials, which
take account of the later developments. By contrast some of those he takes
issue with are working at the leading edge of this energy producing
technology.

http://aeat-env.master.com/texis/mas...l&order=r&n=20
Is a link that will let those wishing to learn more about fuel cell
technology get a more balanced opinion. The one overriding feature of the
executive summaries in most of these reports, is that trials and research
have to begin now, not ten years down the line. It is also a highly active
area of research and it is fair to say some (a minority) share some of Mr.
Firth's view that sustainable, clean, hydrogen production is still some way
off. The recent advances in hydrogen production techniques have brought many
more into the fold of supporting the idea of such fuel cells. The best way
to test such fuel cells is in actual usage conditions, hence the buses, and
the locomotives (USA).

Steve Firth wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Even if you believe that it's unlikely to ever become commercially
viable, that does not excuse your assumption that hydrogen generation
will continue to be as environmentally inefficient as it currently is.


Me and Ricardo Engineering eh?

If that is what they're assuming then yes.

Why should "belief" replace "evidence"? The only people who do that are
religious fanatics and the hydrogen "economy" appears to the source of a
new religion "cheap clean power for everyone, if only you beleive".

Belief shouldn't replace evidence - that's my point! Your assumptions
are based on beliefs not facts. Even though some of those beliefs are
themselves based on evidence, they're not based on ALL the evidence.

I need no excuse for being sceptical of the claims of snake oil
salesmen.

Nor should you.

I need no "belief" in miracle solution to producing hydrogen,
because pysically it simply is not possible.

No, you believe it is not possible. Evidence suggests otherwise, because
places like Iceland have abundant renewable energy that can't be
exported in the conventional way (unless there's an enormous rise in the
cost of electricity, construction of very long undersea electricity
cables is unlikely to ever be profitable). Exporting hydrogen is the
obvious solution for them, and it's not a coincidence that Iceland's
more enthusiastic about the hydrogen economy than any other nation. As
long as there's a demand for it, there will be some hydrogen available.

There's also nuclear energy, where power generation is cheap but the
output can't easily be varied. I believe hydrogen generation is probably
going to be a good way of using up the surplus produced in offpeak
times. You may believe it isn't, but that is just a belief, not a fact.

The figures for hydrogen production for the next 20 years have been
estimated by Ricardo and the DfT. Unless some mystic moonbeam technology

Is electrolysis from geothermal energy a "mystic moonbeam technology"?

appears then it's simply not feasible to rely on a hydrogen economy.

That depends on what you mean by "rely on".

as well as rubbishing/trying to discourage others from
pursuing the research.

I'm not trying to dissuade anyoen from research. However farcical
publicity stunts without any relevant end application such as these
crazy bus scheme do nothing positive.

Why do you not consider running buses on hydrogen to be a "relevant end
application"?

One million quid a bus,

This is only the cost for the prototype. They'd be a lot cheaper once
they got into series production.

energy costs that are unquantified bu at present hydrogen costs likely to
be ovr 10 times the cost of running a bus on diesel, greater emissions (in
total) than runnign the same bus on diesel.

None of which will be true when hydrogen from renewables becomes readily
available.

In what way is this scheme relevant to anythign other than a bit of
advertising and an attempt to shoehorn development costs out of
government (i.e. out of the pockets of the taxpayer)?

It is relevant to understanding the obstcles to the commercialization of
this technology. You seem to think that generating the hydrogen is the
only problem, but that's far from the case.

It's not research,

Does this mean you think that the results of this trial won't lead to
either a better design of hydrogen bus or an abandonment of the idea?

In what way is doing somethign that we already know is possible, but
economically and environmentally pointless "research"?

Because economic factors change, and in the future it may be worthwhile.
And just because we know something is possible doesn't mean we know how
best to do it. Unforseen problems may take a long time to solve, so it
is sensible to start sooner rather than later.

This is as much
research as those people that telephone during dinnertime and say "I'm
doing research on behalf of insert scamming company here."

These buses won't interrupt your dinner, so what's the problem?

all it is is cynical marketing at its worst.

What IYO makes it "cynical"? Do you regard every publicity stunt as so?

Those responsible for the bus know that it cannot be sold to operators
without massive subsidy.

They're not trying to sell these buses. In the future it is likely that
they will be able to sell hydrogen buses to operators without massive
subsidy.

They know that it's not even a viable form of transport.

They do not yet know under what conditions it will become a viable form
of transport. This trial should help to establish that.

They claim environmental benefits while knowign that not only
are there *no* environmental benefits,

The reduction in local pollution on busy city streets is an
environmental benefit.

but that use of hydrogen as a
fuel is less sustainable and less efficient than use of hydrocarbons.

That only applies to hydrogen generated from hydrocarbons, and even then
it may be possible to do it efficiently (making use of the heat
generated in the process).

BTW there is another scenario that I think you should consider. IMO it's
unlikely, but since your predictions of future events are so different
to mine, I'm wondering what you'd make of it:

Cheap oil runs out (or at least production peaks and declines). Much of
the remaining oil is very deep and can not be (environmentally or
economically) efficiently extracted. Instead, fuel is made synthetically
using natural gas and a zeolite catalyst. Hydrogen is produced as a
byproduct.

They do this "research" in order to gain publicity and public support
from unthinking dupes.

They certainly try to gain publicity from it (as many companies do) but
that tells us nothing about the validity (or otherwise) of the research.

Utter ********. If any body proposes something with as far reaching
consequences as a change to hydrogen as a fuel then they had better damn
well ahve *done* their research.

And there's an awful lot of research to do. This is only a small part.

This is not research.

Have you got any evidence for that claim?

Not be asking the rest of us to follow along as an act of faith.

Just how exactly are the hydrogen bus builders doing that???

Do keep up.

I'm way ahead of you! I know why you think the hydrogen bus builders are
doing that, but have you actually got any evidence?

Fuel cells are a diversion from the real issues. Claiming hydrogen to be
"zero emission" is a dioversion from the facts and does the proponents
of a hydrogen economy no favours.

Apart from H2O and heat, there are no emissions - it will actually
reduce the amount of pollution in the air.

Untrue.

Evidence?

[Note that in the article you were replying to, I was referring to
hydrogen use NOT hydrogen generation]

Moving pollution elsewhere is not reducign pollution.

Some types of pollution are more of a problem locally than globally.

Hydrogen generation is a different issue. It can be zero emission and I
expect that in the future most of it will be. However, you should
remember that this is only a trial of the hydrogen buses. At this stage
it is best to get hydrogen from the most readily available source,
whatever that is.

It's best to forget the damn things until hydrogen can be manufactured
from renewable or at the very least carbon-neutral sources. Otherwise
it's just ****ing in the wind.

Hydrogen can ALREADY be manufactured from renewable sources!

"Jon Porter" wrote in message
...

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Apart from H2O and heat, there are no emissions - it will actually
reduce the amount of pollution in the air.

Hydrogen generation is a different issue. It can be zero emission and I
expect that in the future most of it will be. However, you should
remember that this is only a trial of the hydrogen buses. At this stage
it is best to get hydrogen from the most readily available source,
whatever that is.

Precisely! Well said!

The problem with Mr. Firth . .

He also refuses to acknowledege any benefit whatsoever in reducing internal
combustion emissions in the urban areas where road vehicles do most of their
low speed, stop-start, inefficient cold mileage, claiming it's a 'not in my
back yard' issue. Local air quality in towns and cities IS a big concern for
the vast majority of the world's population who live there. Dirty industries
have been progressively cleaned up or moved out of urban areas since WWII,
and domestic burning of coal and wood banned or discouraged. Whilst nobody
claims that modern cars, lorries and buses aren't considerably better for
emissions than models from 20 years ago, traffic growth and the reduction
from other sources leaves transport conspicuously as a major local polluter
of the places where people actually live and work. It's not CO2 that's a
problem from the human health and life quality point of view, it's the other
products that accompany it in the exhaust. IC engines are fascinating
miracles of engineering, but they are also very complex and their remarkable
value for money is mainly down to 100 years of development, service
experience and mass production in a constantly growing market for transport.
All solutions are a compromise, and local and global issues need to be
balanced. If a technology could be demonstrated to be no worse over the
whole cycle on CO2 emmissions (globally), whilst (locally) displacing other
pollution to areas where it can be managed better in areas of lower human
population density, then that would be a benefit to humanity. There might be
unexpected side benefits too; if urban areas were made more pleasant,
perhaps people would be more willing to use zero or lower pollution modes
such as walking and cycling for some of their journeys. Of course non of
this will work unless it can be made economic, but current vehicle price
comparison is meaningless where each of the research examples is virtually a
hand-built prototype.

--
Mark

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Aidan Stanger wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:


Hydrogen can ALREADY be manufactured from renewable sources!

Yes, yes, of course it can. Where can I buy a cylinder of this mythical
moonbeam hydrogen then?

--
You can't buy it yet but there are tanks full of the stuff at University of
Wisconsin, Hitachi Energy in Nagoya, and will be this Summer Aral Gas in
Germany. Just three off the top of my head, but then I'm rather more closely
involved than some. The manufacture of Hydrogen using biomass and glucose
mixtures has already been achieved, without using scarce and expensive
platinum, as has been pointed out to you by me and others over and over.
Let's face it your prejudice and arrogance will blind you against
overwhelming evidence even if it was staring you in the face. Not a good
thing in your field.
At least you are cheap entertainment before dinner.

"Mark Townend" wrote in message
...
"Jon Porter" wrote in message
...

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Apart from H2O and heat, there are no emissions - it will actually
reduce the amount of pollution in the air.

Hydrogen generation is a different issue. It can be zero emission and
I
expect that in the future most of it will be. However, you should
remember that this is only a trial of the hydrogen buses. At this
stage
it is best to get hydrogen from the most readily available source,
whatever that is.

Precisely! Well said!

The problem with Mr. Firth . .

He also refuses to acknowledege any benefit whatsoever in reducing
internal
combustion emissions in the urban areas where road vehicles do most of
their
low speed, stop-start, inefficient cold mileage, claiming it's a 'not in
my
back yard' issue. Local air quality in towns and cities IS a big concern
for
the vast majority of the world's population who live there. Dirty
industries
have been progressively cleaned up or moved out of urban areas since WWII,
and domestic burning of coal and wood banned or discouraged. Whilst nobody
claims that modern cars, lorries and buses aren't considerably better for
emissions than models from 20 years ago, traffic growth and the reduction
from other sources leaves transport conspicuously as a major local
polluter
of the places where people actually live and work. It's not CO2 that's a
problem from the human health and life quality point of view, it's the
other
products that accompany it in the exhaust. IC engines are fascinating
miracles of engineering, but they are also very complex and their
remarkable
value for money is mainly down to 100 years of development, service
experience and mass production in a constantly growing market for
transport.
All solutions are a compromise, and local and global issues need to be
balanced. If a technology could be demonstrated to be no worse over the
whole cycle on CO2 emmissions (globally), whilst (locally) displacing
other
pollution to areas where it can be managed better in areas of lower human
population density, then that would be a benefit to humanity. There might
be
unexpected side benefits too; if urban areas were made more pleasant,
perhaps people would be more willing to use zero or lower pollution modes
such as walking and cycling for some of their journeys. Of course non of
this will work unless it can be made economic, but current vehicle price
comparison is meaningless where each of the research examples is virtually
a
hand-built prototype.

--
Mark


Well said. I have never pretended that the fuel cell will be the panacea for
everything, however in buses there is a better chance of a greater economic
as well as social benefit, especially in urban areas. Even the
petro-chemical industries are questioning the true value of their cleaner
fuels as previously unknown chemical compounds are found at street level. We
got rid of the lead, but what has taken it's place? Catalytic converters It
took only a month of research to discover the nickel/tin catalyst able to
replace hydrogen on the biomass-hydrogen project. A further six weeks and
the viability of it on an industrial scale was proved. In the meantime those
companies and agencies wanting to incorporate clean fuel in the urban
environment are more than happy to sponsor the research. But until that
comes to fruition we have to prove the vehicles and reach a good production
standard able to meet the demands of the future. We therefore have to use
Hydrogen produced by BP. Yes there are emissions at the point of production,
but they are not as destructive as diesel fuel production, and certainly
less so at the point of use. The calorific value is lower but then the
design of the vehicle manages to reduce the effect of this by employing
lighter structure whilst offering the same number of seats as an equivalent
diesel bus. For a start one tonne of steel supporting members and another
3/4 tonne of engine is saved at the front end.
Extensive trials with a double deck version are likely soon. The bigger the
vehicle the greater the weight saving gains and the less cost per passenger.
It is intended to use a Park and Ride Scheme where there all day nature and
frequency of journey gives the bus a good workout. I've proposed Salisbury
as a good case. Historically significant buildings have been damaged by
years of emissions, the existing scheme there is heavily used (cheap 1.50 to
park and carry driver plus 6 passengers), the other is Oxford for similar
reasons. The DfT are keen to progress these trials as is the Dept. of
Health. Overall costings are measured in many ways, estimates vary but it is
widely accepted that there are in excess of 20,000 deaths a year in urban
areas where exhaust emissions are at least a contributor. There is no
dispute at all that those emissions do worsen pre-existing conditions such
as eczema and asthma in children and the elderly particularly. This all
costs the country dear, and those suffering even more so! Noise pollution is
also reduced. Oxford students protested about buses disturbing their exams a
couple of years back for example. I hope we can help them out in this
respect!
Before anyone takes this posting as an anti-car rant let me say this. I own
two cars, one in the UK and one in Spain, I enjoy my driving. I also use the
form of transport most suited to my needs and my pocket. Be it car, train,
bus or plane. But I recognise the need to make all forms of transport
cleaner and more efficient

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_361.shtml

http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...mages/6567.jpg

http://www.aeat-env.com/

http://www.iesd.dmu.ac.uk/research_degrees/main.htm

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ds_505063.hcsp

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/metro/03/0312/17/

http://www.firstgroup.com/

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/alumni/pers..._hydrogen.html

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/e...rame/index.htm

The above are links connected with my work in this area and include my
employers, and those that pay my employers for my services.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Mark Townend wrote:

He also refuses to acknowledege any benefit whatsoever in reducing
internal
combustion emissions in the urban areas where road vehicles do most of
their
low speed, stop-start, inefficient cold mileage, claiming it's a 'not in
my
back yard' issue.

No, I see no benefit in consuming more scarce resources in order to
permit city dwellers to continue with their subsidised, unsustainable
liefstyles. You want to move round in a city? Fine, use public
transport, don't expect to own a car.

In particular don't expect the rest of us to subsidise your lifestyle,
because you've proven over the years that you sure don't give a ****
about ours.

--


That's rich coming from someone being subsidised himself. Give my regards to
Vic when you see him next.