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

the product of combustion of methane
and *air* is H2O CO2, CO, NO2, SO2

SO2? Really?

No go on, explain that one.

The natural gas piped to our houses has H2S added to the odourless methane
in order to make gas leaks detectable by smell. I don't know if this also
applies to the methane put in buses.

--
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

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

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

They are hardly thrown away, they are sold and form the back bone of the 2nd
hand car market.

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

The price of relatively new 2nd hand cars would increase dramatically as would
the number of older cars on the road not very good for the environment. Forcing
all company cars to be sold after 1 year to a government agency who would then
sell them on in exchange for an older car (IE a 5 to 10 year old car is used as
a deposit based on say the black book price plus a grand with a government
funded low interest credit on the balance) this would help get the less safe
worse polluters off the road.

Oliver Keating wrote:
"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.

They are sold, not thrown away. I think you'll find that the discounts
offered by the manufacturers make it very cost-effective to buy or lease
cars for 3 years, given that maintenance costs would be low over that
period.

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

The last company car that I drove for 3 years clocked up over 100,000
miles. After 10 years, do you really think it would be economical and
reliable enough to justify its retention, let alone sufficiently
presentable to represent the company?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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

The natural gas piped to our houses has
H2S added to the odourless methane
in order to make gas leaks detectable by smell.

No it doesn't.

I don't know if this also applies
to the methane put in buses.

Well, since it doesn't apply to domestic gas,
it's a pointless point.

You seem to be trying to point-score rather than educate. A quick web search
suggests that some gas suppliers add H2S, and others add mercaptan, which is
another egg-smelling sulphur compound. Either way, burning it will produce
SO2.

--
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 22:57:10 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:



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


ROFLMAO!!

Oh christ, are you even aware of the existance of car auctions up and down
the land, or fine upstanding publications such as


http://www.autotrader.co.uk/


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Keith J Chesworth" wrote in message
s.com...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:52:05 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:


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.

I have heard of some doing that which seems ot make alot of sense to me from
a tax point of view. Still it does still seem a rarity, unless you have come
across more companies doing it?


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

In article ,
spouted forth into uk.rec.driving...
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.

Off topic for the thread, but just as a matter of interest, what are you
getting fr the next one, and how did you rate the 9-5 compared to other
company cars you've had?
--
Carl Robson
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
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.

In places where they have nuclear power stations, hydrogen power is a
good way to use up some of the excess power produced at times when
demand is low. However, Western Australia does not have nuclear power.
But the amount of energy needed to generate the hydrogen for one car is
very low anyway. The main objective is to prove it can be done. The main
hurdle is technical - the problem of generating the hydrogen efficiently
does not have to be sorted out at this stage. Of course, it will have to
be sorted before commercialization.

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!

Err. Why do you want to punish company car drivers?

In article , Steve Firth
writes
Mark Townend wrote:

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

No, some ****wit from LT on R4 this week was trying to claim it was.



I hate to spoil the party, but the buses are running on tanks of
compressed hydrogen (at 350 bar). The hydrogen is supplied from the BOC
plant as liquid hydrogen. (This is only because Hackney refused planning
permission for a hydrogen filling station at (IIRC) Ash Grove. Goodness
knows why, hydrogen is only as volatile as LPG).

There is no methane involved. There are no carbon emissions. Only water.
You do not have your facts correct.

If you use methane as a hydrogen source for fuel cells then you would
use a hydrogen generator, and a CRT style carbon trap (as used on modern
diesel buses) to scrub the carbon particulate out of the generator
exhaust.

Mass production of hydrogen is way more efficient than using methane to
do localised production - and it's easier to control and monitor the
emissions created in producing the hydrogen.

--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------