Mark W s@o wrote...

"Stimpy" wrote:

Mark W 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

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!

"Punish" them for what, exactly?

Having a job?

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

Maybe the price of second hand cars is rediculously low. After 3 years a car
is worth 1/3 of its value? That is crazy. Is it 1/3 of the car?

No that's just the way the market works, care to guess what fraction a 3 year
old PC is worth of it's original purchase price. I'll give you a clue well under
a third.

Maybe if there weren't so many Mondeo's piling onto the market people would
be driving around in more Supermini's and City cars which are never used as
company cars.

Smaller cars are becoming more popular as company cars due to the tax changes,
Focuses (or is that Foci?) Civics, Golfs even the new Polo and Mini are getting
a look in for company cars.

And, btw as for the environment, manufacturers always claim how "clean"
their cars are, but an unbeleivable amount of environmental damage occurs
during the manufacture *and disposal* of a car which seems to be frequently
ignored.

That's why there are tough legislation on the pollutants released during
manufacture and the forth coming regulations on recycling the cars by the
manufacturer.

But it appears in our consumer society where everyone is going nuts with
"buy, buy, buy," it is the fashion to have a new car every couple of years.
Just as with everything else, we buy, we throw away, we buy we throw away.
The cycle will only come to an end when we abruptly run out of resources.

You've not seen my drive then with an average age of around 24 years I hardly
"throw away" cars one of your favoured sayings I notice.

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

Maybe the price of second hand cars is rediculously low. After 3 years a
car
is worth 1/3 of its value? That is crazy. Is it 1/3 of the car?

Maybe if there weren't so many Mondeo's piling onto the market people
would
be driving around in more Supermini's and City cars which are never used
as
company cars.

If second hand car prices were kept a little higher, then people would
keep
cars longer before scrapping them. It only takes a £200 repair to a 10year
old car and its off down the scrap heap - what a waste.

And, btw as for the environment, manufacturers always claim how "clean"
their cars are, but an unbeleivable amount of environmental damage occurs
during the manufacture *and disposal* of a car which seems to be
frequently
ignored.

There is an old expression - "waste not, want not"

But it appears in our consumer society where everyone is going nuts with
"buy, buy, buy," it is the fashion to have a new car every couple of
years.
Just as with everything else, we buy, we throw away, we buy we throw away.
The cycle will only come to an end when we abruptly run out of resources.


I think a large part of the problem is "image". I remember watching a
programme about a company car driver (sadly a fly on the wall type of thing)
where this chap was explaining the pecking order on the M6. He was in a BMW
5 series. He knew that if a large Merc or BMW 7 series came along he had to
move over as they were higher up the tree than him. However if a Ford
Mondeo, or heaven forbid a lowly Escort wanted to pass him then he would not
pull over as they were deemed too lowly. He then related the tale of the
chap who had just missed his sales target for that year and had his BMW
replaced by a Mondeo. The shame was so great he resigned. I'd turned over in
the middle of all this so thought it was some kind of comedy, but it wasn't!
He was deadly serious, and as the programme went on it was apparant this
sort of shallow thinking was shared by many. If he didn't get a new car
every year he was a failure, if the car wasn't bigger or had more toys in
than the last one, he was a failure. It was pathetic. The idea that a
customer is impressed by the type of car the rep turns up in is a total
non-starter. Especially after seeing some of the thought processes
demonstrated by those taking part in this programme.
Compare that to where I work now. Having moved from policing to engineering
I am now working in the company of some very senior engineering
executives/directors who are on very high salaries and seem to spend more
time globe trotting than in the office. They are invited to seminars around
the World and are regularly invited to Japan, Australasia, USA etc. as
advisors to manufacturers. They are at the top of the tree in this line of
work.
One drives a D plate (1986) Mercedes, the others various Volvos, BMW's etc.
I don't think any have had a new car in the last three years. I tend to buy
a new car and keep it going for 8-9 years on average. My current VW being 6
years old in February and with 150,000 on the clock. It works, is
inexpensive to run, is enjoyable to drive and I will keep it until such time
as a major failure makes it uneconomic to repair. It gets washed and
serviced, is well put together, and quite frankly should keep going for many
years yet judging by all the old VW's still running around. It seems to be
economic and environmental madness for companies to keep buying huge fleets
of vehicles so often, and encourages a lack of care by the drivers who know
they will only keep the car a year or so, so if it goes wrong in some way
there is always a new one not far off. I believe the problem was one
identified by government some years back. I know that there are now some
complaints that the tax allowances are starting to bite. I know this
programme highlighted this as one rep was moaning his 25k Saab would have to
be replaced by a 16k Vehicle. A Skoda Octavia perhaps?

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

1. Hydrogen production is not necessarily a 'very "dirty" process'.
However, at it worst, it is no worse than the production of diesel or
petrol.

Incorrect, unlike diesel and petrol production, the aim of hydrogen
production is to throw away th emajor calorific value of the feedstock.
i.e. the carbon-hydrogen bond energy. The CO2 evolved is then vented to
atmosphere. It's a deliberately wasteful process.

uh-oh you're digging yourself a hole there. the one labelled "chemistry".
a) thats an extremely strange concept of "high energy bond" (binned since
the 70s as misleading)
b) lets see your born-haber cycle calculations.

2. Once produced, there is no secondary pollution as there would be from
internal combustion engines.

Ah yes, if you ignore the primary pollution then the secondary pollution
can look very good indeed. Only a ****wit would ignore the primary
pollution.

or someone who's main concern was about human health, rather than the
greenhouse effect.
Which of course, you would ignore if you claim AGM isn't happening (which
you have done, which nicely finishes a chain of logic)

So, pollution is reduced to one source, instead of thousands, where,
potentially, better anti-pollution systems can be used. And London's
streets and low-level atmosphere are no longer subjected to harmful
emissions.

What a long winded way of saying "NIMBY".

So, by any measure, TfL have reduced harmful emissions.

Utter ********. TfL have increased emissions and moved those emissions
into someone elses backyard.

which pollutants are we on about here? pretty much all of them either are
not produced or are disperse nicely if produced in someone elses back yard.

Of course, the main idea is that if hydrogen can be developed into a fuel,
places like iceland could make it with geothermal energy etc.

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

Trucks seem to do ok. Why is it that as soon as the odometer rolls past
100k
the car is deemed "unreliable" "uneconomic"

Don't you think the car manufacturers have something to do with this?

yep. 10-20 years ago it might have been true, and now it isn't.

Hats off to the car manufacturers.

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

Maybe the price of second hand cars is rediculously low. After 3 years a car
is worth 1/3 of its value? That is crazy. Is it 1/3 of the car?

No that's just the way the market works, care to guess what fraction a 3 year
old PC is worth of it's original purchase price. I'll give you a clue well
under
a third.

Maybe if there weren't so many Mondeo's piling onto the market people would
be driving around in more Supermini's and City cars which are never used as
company cars.

Smaller cars are becoming more popular as company cars due to the tax changes,
Focuses (or is that Foci?) Civics, Golfs even the new Polo and Mini are
getting
a look in for company cars.

And, btw as for the environment, manufacturers always claim how "clean"
their cars are, but an unbeleivable amount of environmental damage occurs
during the manufacture *and disposal* of a car which seems to be frequently
ignored.

That's why there are tough legislation on the pollutants released during
manufacture and the forth coming regulations on recycling the cars by the
manufacturer.

But it appears in our consumer society where everyone is going nuts with
"buy, buy, buy," it is the fashion to have a new car every couple of years.
Just as with everything else, we buy, we throw away, we buy we throw away.
The cycle will only come to an end when we abruptly run out of resources.

You've not seen my drive then with an average age of around 24 years I hardly
"throw away" cars one of your favoured sayings I notice.

I've just got back from a long lunch and 3 of the 7 cars on the car park were
over 10 years old another 1 was an M reg then there were 3 new cars [1] (Ok 2
new cars including the Mini we were in and a new range rover) not very
scientific but would suggest that old cars aren't thrown away any more than 3
year old company cars are. You may consider your old cars as disposable most
people don't. How old is your C class hatch?

[1] I'm classing under 3 years old as new, makes me wonder what happed to all
the cars between 3 and 9 years old! Maybe a bigger sample next time I could try
a supermarket car park if I can be bothered (though that would require me to jot
down the cars age while walking round maybe a bit suspicious looking).

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

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.

There is another route, used to produce hydrogen for barrage balloons during
WW2. This involves having a heated bed of Iron over which steam is passed,
and the steam is reduced to hydrogen by the iron. Of course, energy is
needed to preheat the iron and to produce the steam. Not to mention to
reduce the iron ore to iron in the first place.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Terry Harper wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

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.

There is another route, used to produce hydrogen for barrage balloons
during WW2. This involves having a heated bed of Iron over which steam
is passed, and the steam is reduced to hydrogen by the iron. Of course,
energy is needed to preheat the iron and to produce the steam. Not to
mention to reduce the iron ore to iron in the first place.

Or, in a closed system, to reduce the iron oxide produced back to iron.

Ultimately, it all comes down to where you're going to get the energy
from; hydrogen is a fundamentally synthetic fuel, so you need to supply
electricity, hydrocarbons or light (if you're a photosynthesist) to make
it [1]. IMHO, the only practical carbon-neutral approach would be to use
nuclear electricity; i doubt that photosynthesis or renewable power plants
would be able to supply enough power.

tom

[1] Unless, of course, you're going to build a Bussard ramscoop and just
collect it in outer space. Ken may be a nutcase and/or visionary, but i
doubt even LT are seriously considering that .

--
or are they poststructuralist terrorists? perhaps we shall never truly know.

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

maybe a bit suspicious looking).


So in character then? :-)

In article , Steve Firth
writes
Steve wrote:

I hate to spoil the party, but the buses are running on tanks of
compressed hydrogen (at 350 bar).

That is not the statement made by LRT. They clearly stated that the
buses run on CNG.


Well, then, they don't know what they are talking about (so no surprise
there). The buses are part of the CUTE project, to run 27 PAFC fuel cell
buses in regular traffic in 9 European cities. The buses are all
identical (apart from the side the driver sits in the UK spec ones).

Full details he

http://www.fuel-cell-bus-club.com/ne...fuel_cell.html
--
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------