"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.