Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message

Vehicles "are" a very large polluters, especially when they are

concentrated

in cities, where masses of people live. Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation standards, boiler efficiency , etc,

yet

there appears no immediate solution to the filthy car.

Sorry!? I think you have that the wrong way round.
The laws on vehicle pollution continue to get tougher and tougher and the
manufacturers have had to comply to continue to sell vehicles. There has
been massive strides in reducing pollution from cars, per mile travelled.
Catalytic Converters, Electronic Engine Control, lean burn engines, two
stage ignition, direct petrol injection, particle traps etc with more to
come. We are significantly reducing overall pollution figures despite a
massive increase in vehicles, now all we need to do is get rid of all those
old polluting buses.


I suggest that you take the effort to find out the facts behind the
government and motor lobby propaganda. That is completely untrue.
Here are a few of the major reasons, but I shall not follow up much.
If you want to know the science behind what I am saying, I will answer
if I can, but I will not play Blair and Howard.

1) An increasing number of cars are fitted with power steering
and brakes, and (worse) air conditioning. In addition to increasing
the fuel consumption, it means that engines need to be left running
when the car is stopped in traffic. Not all are as bad as Citroen,
but it is now rare for engines to be switched off in traffic jams.



No issue there. But people never used to switch off engines in jams
anyway. And you don't need steering when the car is staitonary..


2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but
increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after
the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the
UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine
is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the
the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.



I don't think you are correct on that. The NO stuff anyway. The biggest
benefirt is that they do (once hot) redice hydrocarbon emmissions that
are teh bigger causes of smog. Not disagreeing with your main point tho.


I will give you that an INCIDENTAL effect has been the removal of lead
and sulphur but, as someone with breathing problems, I can witness that
pollution for a given amount of traffic is getting worse.


I agree on that. But I have noticed something different. I can drive the
M25 on a sunday, and not be badly affected. But on a weekday.....its hell.

The difference? No diesels. Diesels produce emormous quantities of very
nasty pollution and are not subject to legislation.



3) The various regulations have the effect of increasing the weight
of vehicles, discouraging more economical two-wheeled transport (both
motorcycles and bicycles, ridden on the road). I believe that it would
now be cheaper for me to get a HGV licence than a motorcycle one, and I
am a very "low risk" person. And cycling is now finished, as a form of
medium-distance commuting (3-10 miles), and that is DIRECTLY due to the
changes in regulations and attitudes of the "powers that be."


I don't actually agree there either. Tother half's Fiat Punto is more
economical, with its power steering, and lighter, than - say - a morris
minor of 50 years ago, or indeed a Mini of 30 years ago. And faster an
better braked than any of my 60's sports cars - MG midgets etc.

I agree on cycling. Too many cars for it to be safe.



Other people have pointed out the errors in your "pollution-free" car
theory. All it does is move the pollution from the suburbs to the
power station, though I agree that doing so COULD be used to reduce
pollution. I know of no plans that any government has, and definitely
not the UK, to do so.




I thimk a two pronged attack is called for - to reduce overall need to
drive, which I frmly believe will actually come about naturally as more
an more people use the net to do what a car used to. It worts for me.

And a radical switch to electric cars. No polluton at teh point of
drive, but, as you pioint out, shifting the pollution back to the power
gerenating stations. Where IMHO it is MUCH better addressed.

Cars acn omly run on a limited rtange of fules, at limited efficiency
due to the weight of making the realy efficient engnes, Power staons can
run on almost anythig and the weight is not an issue. They don't suffer
from idling, intermittent use, and so on. In short everything about
electric cars is ideal for car use. They only use energy when moving,
they produce no noise or effluents, (or much less) and it is even
possible to use regenerative braking to charge th ebatteros when slowing
them down, although the economics of that are yet to be proven.

Performance with lithium polymer cells is more than adequate - in fact
it is stupendous. Distribution of energy exists in the national grid.
Overnight charging would actually improve power staion efficiency as it
happens when other electrical uses are low, so power stations run
continuosly - much better for efficiency. The only unknown to me is the
energy cost and lifetime of battery production and recycling. But I
doubt it is worse than making e.g aluminium for car engines, or steel
for transmissions.

The cars are simpler too - all wheel drive with motors integarted into
the hubs, no need for gearboxes by and large, or transmissions. In short
its a simpler beast. One enormous battery pack, 4 motors and a bit of
power electronics. That replaces engine, cooling system, transmiision,
axles - in short most of the heavy bulky bits. No maintenance, apart
from replacing defective cells and so on. No oil changes, or plug
changes. Performance with most of te weight slung low under the cahssis,
and a motor on every wheel, with de facto traction control - its a rally
drivers dream come true. No gears to go, no clutch to go. And easy
access to better than 800bhp if you need it, or the ability to trickle
along at 90% efficiency at much lower power levels. £00 miles + range on
an overnight charge.

If YOU could get one of these at 20 grand that cost 1/4 of the cost of
a petrol car to run, would you not buy one? (on cheap rate electricity I
reckon about 15 quid to 'fill the tank' for 300 mile range). I wold,
like a bloody shot!








Regards,
Nick Maclaren.