In article , Mikael
Armstrong writes

Which would mean that companies would just give employees they currently
provide with company cars, allowances to buy private cars with, on a
contract hire arrangement! I'm surprised more don't do it as the company car
tax regime removes most financial advantages anyway.

Mikael

I've had a company car for a number of years (currently got a Saab 9-5
which goes in 6 weeks). The company has reduced the amount of money we
get to spend on our cars to 16K in these austere times and we now have
to make the cars last 3.5 years as opposed to 3.

Despite the tax, the allowance to buy my own car from my employer
provides no incentive whatsoever to dump the company car as it's not
enough to run a moped on, let alone a family saloon like a Vectra.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:
So there's no alternative to the infernal combustion engine the oil
company's say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/3350715.stm

Epic trip for 'alternative' car

A car that runs on just hydrogen and solar power has completed a journey
through Australia - the first crossing of a continent for a car of this
type.

Where does the hydrogen come from?

Australia, I expect - getting it through customs is more trouble than
it's worth :-)

The trouble with hydrogen is that it's rather difficult to store to take
with you

The trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to extract it
from water or other compounds. Hopefully, in the future, wind
or solar power will be used to do that. For now, a hydrogen
fuel cell is just displacing the pollution and greenhouse gases
from the car to the power plant.

--
Steven O'Neill
The bicycle is the true automobile.

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:
So there's no alternative to the infernal combustion engine the oil
company's say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/3350715.stm

Epic trip for 'alternative' car

A car that runs on just hydrogen and solar power has completed a journey
through Australia - the first crossing of a continent for a car of this
type.

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.

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

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

. . . 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".

Of what though?

It may not save CO2 emissions locally but removes other more nasty stuff to
a remote place where it can be cleaned up more easily - some gain to local
residents at least?

It would of course be simpler and cheaper simply to burn the methane in
an IC engine. But it would also be less politically correct and harder
to pull the wool over the eyes of the travelling public.

But wouldn't there be more dirty stuff emitted locally?

--
Mark
http://www.maprail.com/

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:
So there's no alternative to the infernal combustion engine the oil
company's say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/3350715.stm

Epic trip for 'alternative' car

A car that runs on just hydrogen and solar power has completed a journey
through Australia - the first crossing of a continent for a car of this
type.

Where does the hydrogen come from?

Australia, I expect - getting it through customs is more trouble than
it's worth :-)

The trouble with hydrogen is that it's rather difficult to store to take
with you

The trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to extract it
from water or other compounds. Hopefully, in the future, wind
or solar power will be used to do that. For now, a hydrogen
fuel cell is just displacing the pollution and greenhouse gases
from the car to the power plant.

See http://tinyurl.com/2gbbo (non tinyurl at the bottom for people who don't
trust them) for a viable biological hydrogen extraction method. Best of all it
would be relatively cheap even though it would require a large area.

http://www.esb.utexas.edu/islam/_pri...en_A lgae.htm

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

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

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

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

. . . 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".

Of what though?

"Sero emission" means no emission, of anything.

It may not save CO2 emissions locally but removes other more nasty stuff
to
a remote place where it can be cleaned up more easily - some gain to
local
residents at least?

No, running a bus on methane means that CO2 is emitted from the bus (as
well as water) hence it's not "zero emission".

I never said it was


It would of course be simpler and cheaper simply to burn the methane
in
an IC engine. But it would also be less politically correct and harder
to pull the wool over the eyes of the travelling public.

But wouldn't there be more dirty stuff emitted locally?

Are you hapopy with pollution as long as it's in someone elses back
yard? The products of combustion of methane are water and CO2, exactly
the same as if the same gas is used in a fuel cell. Except of course
that burning the fuel in an engine produces more usable energy, hence
more miles per unit of CO2 emitted.

Is mobile methane combustion in lots of little IC engines as clean as you
claim though? What about lubrication oil losses, wear products, costs of
(possibly?) more frequent replacement etc. I'm not claiming it's any
dirtier, just interested in a comparison of the whole cycle and its effect
on different populations and on ecology. Removing concentrations of any
nastier directly-emitted pollutants from the streets where people live and
work must be laudible. CO2 isn't a particularly dangerous product to human
health locally at the level that transport produces it, but lead-based
additives were, so we (society, government, industry) removed it.

--
Mark

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

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.

What a waste, they should have a free sparkling water drinking fountain in
the bus.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:52:05 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:

"Mark W" s@o wrote in message
...

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Mark W wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
So there's no alternative to the infernal combustion engine the oil
company's say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/3350715.stm


Epic trip for 'alternative' car

I think the UK Government should pass a law to make this technology
compulsory for all company cars.

BMW and DaimlerChrysler are already working on Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
power
as a viable alternative to existing technologies. BMW have suggested
that
they expect to be able to offer such engines within 5-8 years. It's
currently looking like the best alternative to petrol/diesel engines but
it
wouldn't be feasible to make it compulsory just yet.

JOOI, why only for company cars?




I want to punish company car drivers!



Which would mean that companies would just give employees they currently
provide with company cars, allowances to buy private cars with, on a
contract hire arrangement! I'm surprised more don't do it as the company car
tax regime removes most financial advantages anyway.

Mikael

They do, even my company is forcing us to use a lease company they
have set up.

Keith J Chesworth
www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
news
In article , Mikael
Armstrong writes

Which would mean that companies would just give employees they currently
provide with company cars, allowances to buy private cars with, on a
contract hire arrangement! I'm surprised more don't do it as the company
car
tax regime removes most financial advantages anyway.

Mikael

I've had a company car for a number of years (currently got a Saab 9-5
which goes in 6 weeks). The company has reduced the amount of money we
get to spend on our cars to 16K in these austere times and we now have
to make the cars last 3.5 years as opposed to 3.

This really p****s me off about company cars, its such a wasteful policy to
throw away cars that are 3 years old.

I reckon company cars should have a minimum life cycle of 10 years, maybe
20.


Despite the tax, the allowance to buy my own car from my employer
provides no incentive whatsoever to dump the company car as it's not
enough to run a moped on, let alone a family saloon like a Vectra.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of
this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.