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

I have, as I pointed out, use of the same fuel in

BTW, don't start ranting on about the efficiency of fuel cells either.
The DfT rates a fuel cell at 1.4MJ/km, a petrol engine at 1.98 MJ/km.
Hardly the huge difference in energy efficiency needed to overcome the
laughable fuel costs and weight penalties.

[Source: DfT "platinum and hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles"]

This is before we start to wrry about the effects of released hydrogen
on global warming and depletion of the ozone layer, the improbability
that there is enough platinum available to meet demand, and the
*increased* use fo fossil fuels in order to gnerate "clean[1]" hydrogen.

[1] Har, bloody har.

--

Through travelling to sunnier climes I've lost some of this thread and
therefore having to pick it up again from my laptop, however as previously
pointed out the use of platinum as a catalyst for hydrogen production is old
hat. A tin/nickel mixture in a low temperature, neutral emission process is
seen as the way forward. This will use far less energy than is currently
used to produce diesel, which is what the power cell idea is hopefully
replacing. The raw source of the hydrogen is also far more abundant and
cheaper. (glucose/plant waste mixture) Nickel/Tin catalyst costs are in the
region of one to two thousandths that of platinum. I do not have the paper
to hand, however a Google search should give several results. From memory it
was the University of Wisconsin and another University in Nagoya (Japan) who
were pioneering the process. Commercial sponmsorship to further the research
is assured. Therefore your DfT data is out of date. I understand a further
study by the DfT is currently underway in this area and their data may be
updated in due course using independent consultants.

To reiterate no one from this side of the industry in the UK is trying to
con the public as the companies I work with are quite open in their press
releases about the current drawbacks. BP is supplying the hydrogen currently
used and the buses are a trial of the technology.

To rattle on using old data to try and prove a point of view is not good
form. Similar arguments were put forward at the time Boeing began developing
the 747. At the time of project launch there were various engineering
problems that could not be solved using then current metals in some of the
heavier loaded areas of the airframe. The new alloys had to be invented.
There were many both within Boeing and Nasa who said the required
strength/weight ratio could not be achieved, of course the cleverer ones in
those organisations were not put off and their persistence has paid off many
times over. The alloys were invented and produced in quantity within three
years.

No one is pretending the fuel cell is the panacea for all auto-motive
traffic, however if a clean process is developed to produce hydrogen in
industrial quantities there are many towns/cities which will benefit from
having less polluting emissions damaging the health of their occupants and
the fabric of their buildings, not to mention noise pollution. Quieter, less
damaging buses are one way of contributing to a better environment. 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 as well as rubbishing/trying to discourage others from
pursuing the research. If such attitudes prevailed in the 1960s we'd have
neither cheaper air travel or non stick frying pans.

Regards,

Jon

Mijas, head clear of the sand.