In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Err, no. The concept is totally flawed. All it does is move the
pollution about. They're certainly no more energy efficient than a
small diesel of similar performance.

They are. If your power station efficiency including tranmissions loses
is better than the diesl in a car, you gave a net gain.

Calculations show this is indeed the case.

And you've included the efficiency of charging a battery?

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

What nonsense. Performance is zippy all right. The average of hybrids
is
about twice the mpg over a similar type of car. Indisputable facts.

So

** snip senility from Richard Cranium **

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So you're suggesting there are batteries around that not only store
more energy than petrol but also take up less space? Is this on the
planet Zog?

Not quite. But given the appalling efficiency and weight of IC engines,
overall it comes close.

But IC engines are getting better all the time

Oh my God!!! What he means is that are putting more comfy seats in.

Now if you look at power train weights...A 200bhp diesel car probably
has about 60% iof a 1.5 tonne weight in terms of all the gubbins
associated with making it go...to whit.

Engine
Exhaust stystem
Gearbox
Cooling system
Transmission

and so on. ALL of which can be replaced
with 4 custom motors, one on each
wheel and say a fairly lightweight bank of
electronics to drive them.

Again, you're not comparing like for like.

You silly pillock, he comparing car for car.

I'll to snip it all now , as it is too painful to read

** snip senile babble ***

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile
range at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I
have had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300.
None will crack 400 even, let alone 500.

Don't be silly.

I will have to do some more snipping as this is very painful for all to
read. He is on about pillock Clarkson now. Yes he is.

** snip senile babble **

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

What nonsense. Performance is zippy all right. The average of
hybrids is about the mpg over a similar type of car.
Indisputable facts.

So

** snip senility from Richard Cranium **

You seem to have a problem quoting yourself so I've put it back to as it
was.

What a fool you are.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

What nonsense. Performance is zippy all right. The average of
hybrids is about the mpg over a similar type of car.
Indisputable facts.

So

** snip senility from Richard Cranium **

** snip more senility from Richard Cranium **

"Dave Plowman (News)" through haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
But IC engines are getting better all the time

Oh my God

Yes, subject?

** pathetic senilty indeed **

This nut is amazing. Archie the inventor - in pink and a kilt.

In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:23:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile range
at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I have
had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300. None will
crack 400 even, let alone 500.

My 2.2dci Espace had a 17 gallon tank and did 40 mpg on the motorway and
regularly went over 600 miles between fill ups, I know because I reset
the mileometer each time for the records, whether you class it as a car
though...

Read my other post. If you factor in the totality of the power train,
things look exceptionally rosy for a lithium electric. Its as good as or
better than an IC engine. Leccy motors are VERY light and do not need
complex gearboxes. If you add in regenerative braking they are even
better...

Where it would realluy score is in the urban/subuirban area - a small car
with lightweight body, that does at best 50-100 miles a day and gets
recharged every night. On off peak electriciity. But is still capable of
90mph and 300 miles on a good day.

This is technically feasible RIGHT NOW. Its not comnmercially viable YET.

--
David

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:23:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But it doesn't produce greenhouse gases like driving cars, including
hybrids, does.

Actually it would be cheaper than oil or gas at todays prices IF two things
were to happen

- it wasn't so completely sutrounded with sfatey regulations that are way
in excess of what is required for any other industrial activity pro rata to
te risk to life involved

- it wasn't effectively taxed with respet to the disposal of its waste
material way above what is fair compared with other indistrial activities.

Nuclear decommissioning currently costs 2.2bn a year of which half
comes directly from Treasury, ie us taxpayers:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:nE3Mp5PSG_wJ:www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051017/text/51017w40.htm+site:.co.uk+nuclear+power+2.2+billion &hl=en&client=opera

Contrast that with the 80m a year (500m over next 6 years) spending
_planned_ for renewables:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Zh0Qm0CR114J:www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050628/text/50628w07.htm+site:.co.uk+hansard+500+million%20ren ewable%20&hl=en&client=opera

People have been very emotional about nuclear power. i've heard ministers
claiming blatint lies to be facts...

I'd expect nothing less from T Bliar...

Fortunately the game has switched from 'can we afford to take the risk' to
'can we afford NOT to take the risk'

And te short answr is , no we can't. There is a greater risk to UK society
from not going ahead with more nuclear plant than from going ahead with it.

They should spend a *lot* more on renewables and energy efficiency as
well, as is being done in Germany and Japan.

However this would now require another U turn so is looking more and
more unlikely.

Also we've been selling the last of our gas cheaply to the continent
for years, and now we're having to buy it back at inflated prices.
Absurd...

cheers,
Pete.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:02:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:35:58 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:27:36 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

well lemme see..the best battery I have as 22 watt hours roughly and
weighs...rushing to scales...150g..and costs about 50 quid so thats 6.6Kwh.
for 45kg.

I reckon 30KWh is about what you need for a 300 mile range lighweight
electric 'shopping trolley' with a 300 mile range. About £50,000 quid. :-)

Say 250kg. About the same as a conventional car engine and transmission and
cooling system.

Batteries on their own will not make a car move, the motor and control
system has to be factored in. In any case 250kg is considerably above
the weight of even some 15 year old engine gearbox combinations
(around the 1.6 litre mark)

I have factored that in elsewhere. Electrivc motirs are considerably
lighter than IC engines and even more os when you strip way te unwanbted
cooling and transmission.


. I was talking about a 200bhp system and a diesel to boot. 1.6 petrol
engines at best might produce 100bhp.

100bhp from a petrol 1.6? get real.

The 100bhp mark in a 1.6 was passed many moons ago, the 100bhp per
LITRE mark in production spec engines (both bike and car) was also
passed quite a while ago, hell you can even get a "washing machine"
Smart fortwo - 698cc that turns out 61 bhp (87bhp/litre)

But forget 200bhp, come up with a weedy "140bhp" power system using
battery storage, with a range even remotely comparable to say the
Passat 2 litre TDi and with similar performance (48.7 mpg combined
cycle, 749 mile range, 0-62 9.8 seconds, 130mph are the figures to aim
for)

Regardless of price you'd better arrange cryogenic storage for me
though as it will probably take you 500 years to get anywhere near -
unless on board nuclear reactors become the norm :-)


--

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:01:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:35:40 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:27:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:09 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

The electricity isn't wasted at night.

Actually it is.

The power stations are essentially idling at the great traffic lights of
consumer demand. Since they take a LOT of hours to come on line, they have
to be left at idle.

With the exception of (the majority of) UK nuclear plants that have
specific problems with load changes down and then rapidly up, the
installed generating capacity in the UK (even the 500's and 660's coal
plants installed in the 60's and 70's) are perfectly capable of being
shut down or run on very reduced load overnight and return relatively
rapidly to load next morning. They don't like doing it and it is
wasteful in some respects - hence why some power stations have in the
past bid into the system at zero cost (they got paid the system
marginal rate) which works right up until the point at which the load
drops unexpectedly, the system marginal bid is zero and nobody gets
paid - it has happened!

Exactly they don;t like it and its wasteful.

Thert is a difference between shutting down - going 'cold' - and going to
'standby' , A BIG difference. Some power stations take a week to bring up
to speed from 'cold'. Standby means they are simply turning over, possibly
not connected to the grid at all, but still with heat being generated and
watsed and combustion going on.

It takes HOURS to get a steam boiler up to pressure. Only gas turbines are
relatively quick.

You effectively "box" the boilers up (no fans, all dampers closed, no
oil burners, main steam valves shut, all drains shut) and the boiler
pressure decays away *very* slowly, shut down past the evening peak
and then around 4am before demand starts picking up next day, run the
fans, kick in a few oil burners, blow down your drains and then add a
mill or two, keep a close eye on the turbine clearances and vibration
and you can easily go from this semi-hot state with absolutely *zero*
heat input to full boiler firing and maximum generator load in around
2 hours.

The 120MW units were doing it just like this way back in the 60's, the
500's and 660's were capable (and in some cases regularly doing it)
back in the 80's. Well before gas fired generation arrived it was
taken as read, almost regardless of unit cost that as larger gas
cooled reactors came on line two shift operation of the large coal
generators would become an essential requirement. Considerable
investment was made in updated instrumentation and control systems
(and sometimes boiler metallurgy and combustion engineering) to
facilitate that change.

The only time a power station would ever take a week to run up from
cold would be after a major overhaul when there would be numerous
checks to carry out. In normal operation, from room temperature
ambient metal temperatures on the boiler and turbine it is perfectly
feasible to reach full load in around 24-36 hours. I've seen a 500MW
unit come back from an annual overhaul involving a lot of boiler
retubing, with major turbine, alternator and auxiliaries work, have a
boiler pressure test late Friday, do a safety valve float Saturday and
be at full load 6am Monday (it was off load Tuesday with a boiler tube
leak though!)


--

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote...
It made you sound simple. BTW, Nuclear is not cheap.

But it doesn't produce greenhouse gases like driving cars, including
hybrids, does.

Actually it would be cheaper than oil or gas at todays prices IF two things
were to happen

- it wasn't so completely sutrounded with sfatey regulations that are way
in excess of what is required for any other industrial activity pro rata to
te risk to life involved
- it wasn't effectively taxed with respet to the disposal of its waste
material way above what is fair compared with other indistrial activities.

People have been very emotional about nuclear power. i've heard ministers
claiming blatint lies to be facts...

Why is there never any discussion of pebble bed reactors, currently
under development in many parts of the world, notably China?

"David" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:23:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock
ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is
less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile
range
at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I
have
had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300. None
will
crack 400 even, let alone 500.

My 2.2dci Espace had a 17 gallon tank and did 40 mpg on the motorway and
regularly went over 600 miles between fill ups, I know because I reset
the mileometer each time for the records, whether you class it as a car
though...

I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top Gear
survey.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:23:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

But it doesn't produce greenhouse gases like driving cars, including
hybrids, does.

Actually it would be cheaper than oil or gas at todays prices IF two
things
were to happen

- it wasn't so completely sutrounded with sfatey regulations that are way
in excess of what is required for any other industrial activity pro rata
to
te risk to life involved

- it wasn't effectively taxed with respet to the disposal of its waste
material way above what is fair compared with other indistrial
activities.

Nuclear decommissioning currently costs 2.2bn a year of which half
comes directly from Treasury, ie us taxpayers:


http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...ent.the-statio
nery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051017/text/51017w40.htm+site:.co.u
k+nuclear+power+2.2+billion&hl=en&client=opera

Contrast that with the 80m a year (500m over next 6 years) spending
_planned_ for renewables:


http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...ent.the-statio
nery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050628/text/50628w07.htm+site:.co.u
k+hansard+500+million%20renewable%20&hl=en&client= opera

People have been very emotional about nuclear power. i've heard ministers
claiming blatint lies to be facts...

I'd expect nothing less from T Bliar...

Will you give us an example of a proven lie please?

Fortunately the game has switched from 'can we afford to take the risk'
to
'can we afford NOT to take the risk'

And te short answr is , no we can't. There is a greater risk to UK
society
from not going ahead with more nuclear plant than from going ahead with
it.

They should spend a *lot* more on renewables and energy efficiency as
well, as is being done in Germany and Japan.

However this would now require another U turn so is looking more and
more unlikely.

What U turn is this?

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:02:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:35:58 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:27:36 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Have you ever weighed a full fuel tank -£50s worth?. Per weight
modern
state-of-the-art batteries pack a hell of a lot of energy. These
batteries
are not available in volume yet.


Mines about 45kg but it only holds £40 worth.
How much charge can you get in 45kg of battery?

well lemme see..the best battery I have as 22 watt hours roughly and
weighs...rushing to scales...150g..and costs about 50 quid so thats
6.6Kwh.
for 45kg.

I reckon 30KWh is about what you need for a 300 mile range lighweight
electric 'shopping trolley' with a 300 mile range. About £50,000 quid.
:-)

Say 250kg. About the same as a conventional car engine and transmission
and
cooling system.

Batteries on their own will not make a car move, the motor and control
system has to be factored in. In any case 250kg is considerably above
the weight of even some 15 year old engine gearbox combinations
(around the 1.6 litre mark)

I have factored that in elsewhere. Electrivc motirs are considerably
lighter than IC engines and even more os when you strip way te unwanbted
cooling and transmission.


. I was talking about a 200bhp system and a diesel to boot. 1.6 petrol
engines at best might produce 100bhp.

100bhp from a petrol 1.6? get real.

The 100bhp mark in a 1.6 was passed many moons ago,

Lord Hall, waht is the average BHP for 1600s on the market?

But forget 200bhp, come up with a weedy "140bhp" power system using
battery storage, with a range even remotely comparable to say the
Passat 2 litre TDi and with similar performance (48.7 mpg combined
cycle, 749 mile range, 0-62 9.8 seconds, 130mph are the figures to aim
for)

Regardless of price you'd better arrange cryogenic storage for me
though as it will probably take you 500 years to get anywhere near -
unless on board nuclear reactors become the norm :-)

Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"David" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:23:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock
ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is
less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile
range
at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I
have
had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300. None
will
crack 400 even, let alone 500.

My 2.2dci Espace had a 17 gallon tank and did 40 mpg on the motorway and
regularly went over 600 miles between fill ups, I know because I reset
the mileometer each time for the records, whether you class it as a car
though...

I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top Gear
survey.

Ahh, it doesn't surprise me that you have faith in surveys John, I had
the Espace for 2 years and the only thing that went wrong with it was a
rock through the oil cooler, it was easily the most satisfying and
versatile "car" I have ever owned. I would have another one in a shot
but lifestyle doesn't support that choice at the moment. I am not a
great believer in surveys, they produce statistics and you can make
statistics do anything you like.. I have noticed that you use them when
it suits you but totally ignore them when they don't.

just a thought
--
David

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top
Gear survey.

Where did the Prius come, dribble?

--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

It was 150 mpg only a few days back.

They average about 40 mpg if used normally. Get used to it.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I did say that they use electricity that is currently generated by
Fossil Fuels, that can be changed if there is sufficient will ... fuel
cells, wind, hydro, agropower etc.

Methane does not have to be from Fossil fuel .... ever visited a farm
yard ?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top
Gear survey.


Where did the Prius come, dribble?

I doubt it even got a look in, since they sell in tiny numbers.

Topgear magazine did have a long term test prius they just got shot of
though. Some bits from their final report on it:

"It's time to say farewell to our long-term Prius. It's been here for a
year with no mechanical faults whatsoever, and has proved to be frugal,
low-emission, comfortable transportation. On the downside, it was never
thrilling to drive.

But the TG office has proved I think that it isn't composed purely of
hardcore speed nutters; the Prius has been generally liked for its
eco-friendly nature and, perhaps, its novelty.

On the open road it'll average 50-55mpg. In cold weather, though,keeping
the aircon on high brings the car's efficiency from around 44mpg in town
to 34mpg.

Trying to turn off the aircon to save fuel meant that the inside steamed
up badly - and I couldn't clear it with the normal heating."

"As long as you've no ambitions to be a boy/girl racer, the Prius is
comfy, pleasant enough to drive, practical for a small family and even
quite handsome. Plus you don't pay the Congestion Charge which, as such
schemes spread, will be great selling point. "



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:09 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

The electricity it uses is overnight which normally would be wasted,
that
is
why they offer economy 7 and 19 and 34, etc, when using overnight
electricity.


The electricity isn't wasted at night.

Actually it is.

No it isn't.
Where in the grid is this device that wastes the electricity?
They may waste fuel keeping the stations online but they don't waste
electricity.


The power stations are essentially idling at the great traffic lights of
consumer demand. Since they take a LOT of hours to come on line, they have
to be left at idle.

Quite a lot of peak demand is supplied by stored water generation (inside
welsh moutains) and by gas turbines which spin up in a few seconds.


Overnight charging of cars wold make a LOT of difference in sommothing out
demand curves for electricity,and utilse the existing infratsructure to
far
greater overall cost benefit.

It is just capacity that is not earning revenue at night.

Its better to reduce the daytime demand and use more of the capacity at
night.
This is why storage heaters were invented.

Yes. biut not because its capacity thats is not earning revenue, its
becasue it is capacity that is costing money and fuel to keep running.


That's what I said.

"David" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"David" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:23:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
You have to take into account the total weight of the vehicle. IC
engines, transmissions an fuel tanks are bulky and heavy with knock
ons
like heavier suspension, bigger stronger bodies, etc. The new
Mitsubishi, to be launched ion Japan in about 3 to 4 years, has an
electric motor in wheel hub setup. The total weight of the car is
less
vs. the IC equiv, giving the designer greater licence.

Indeed. Until you fit it with batteries capable of giving a 500 mile
range
at 70+ mph.

I have never driven a car with a 500 mile range. 300 is average, and I
have
had some that were less thahn 200, and a few that were over 300. None
will
crack 400 even, let alone 500.

My 2.2dci Espace had a 17 gallon tank and did 40 mpg on the motorway
and
regularly went over 600 miles between fill ups, I know because I reset
the mileometer each time for the records, whether you class it as a car
though...

I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top
Gear
survey.

Ahh, it doesn't surprise me that you have faith in surveys John, I had
the Espace for 2 years and the only thing that went wrong with it was a
rock through the oil cooler, it was easily the most satisfying and
versatile "car"

Bertie, I'm sure you did think that, but you are about the only one who has
then.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top
Gear survey.

Where did the Prius come

So far ahead it is out of sight.

"Dave Plowman (News)" througha haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

It was 150 mpg only a few days back.

Richard, or is it Archie the inventor, the California one did.

** snip senility **

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...

I did say that they use electricity that is currently generated by
Fossil Fuels, that can be changed if there is sufficient will ... fuel
cells, wind, hydro, agropower etc.

Methane does not have to be from Fossil fuel .... ever visited a farm
yard ?

The common room at Richard Craniums home.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:36:52 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wittered as usual:


"Matt" wrote in message
.. .

100bhp from a petrol 1.6? get real.

The 100bhp mark in a 1.6 was passed many moons ago,

Lord Hall, waht is the average BHP for 1600s on the market?

No idea, do your own research I can't be arsed. As you drive around in
your glorified washing machine ponder the fact that with forced
induction and toxic jungle juice they were getting around 1500bhp out
of a 1.5 litre back in the 1980's.

But forget 200bhp, come up with a weedy "140bhp" power system using
battery storage, with a range even remotely comparable to say the
Passat 2 litre TDi and with similar performance (48.7 mpg combined
cycle, 749 mile range, 0-62 9.8 seconds, 130mph are the figures to aim
for)

Regardless of price you'd better arrange cryogenic storage for me
though as it will probably take you 500 years to get anywhere near -
unless on board nuclear reactors become the norm :-)

Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

The Passat, like all mass market vehicles on sale today meets the
latest EU4 emission regulations: 749 mile range, 0-62 in 9.8 seconds,
130mph and a combined cycle mpg of 48.7. On finding out these facts
the devastated Toyota Prius designer has just picked up his sword as
the words "game over" flashed in front of his eyes.


--

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:36:52 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

Yes, it pollutes as soon as the engine is forced to take over after
(even in 'electric only' mode (assuming there is such a thing)) the
battery charge drops too far .. and how many miles 'out of town' would
that be again Drivel .. 3 was it?

Like I said at the beginning .. the Prius is an IC car with a big
starter motor ..

All the best ..

T i m

pre snip drivelling snipped snippings

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:11:37 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Quite a lot of peak demand is supplied by stored water generation (inside
welsh moutains)

No, SOME peak demand is supplied by pumped storage schemes

and by gas turbines which spin up in a few seconds.

That has not been the practice in the UK for about 30 years, they
didn't even run during the miners strike in the 80's


--

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1130727On Mon, 28 Nov 2005
22:08:57 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top
Gear survey.


Where did the Prius come, dribble?

I doubt it even got a look in, since they sell in tiny numbers.

Topgear magazine did have a long term test prius they just got shot of
though. Some bits from their final report on it:

"It's time to say farewell to our long-term Prius. It's been here for a
year with no mechanical faults whatsoever, and has proved to be frugal,
low-emission, comfortable transportation. On the downside, it was never
thrilling to drive.

But the TG office has proved I think that it isn't composed purely of
hardcore speed nutters; the Prius has been generally liked for its
eco-friendly nature and, perhaps, its novelty.

On the open road it'll average 50-55mpg. In cold weather, though,keeping
the aircon on high brings the car's efficiency from around 44mpg in town
to 34mpg.

Trying to turn off the aircon to save fuel meant that the inside steamed
up badly - and I couldn't clear it with the normal heating."

"As long as you've no ambitions to be a boy/girl racer, the Prius is
comfy, pleasant enough to drive, practical for a small family and even
quite handsome. Plus you don't pay the Congestion Charge which, as such
schemes spread, will be great selling point. "


So not suitable for our friend, Basildon Bond, then......


--

..andy

"Matt" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:11:37 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Quite a lot of peak demand is supplied by stored water generation (inside
welsh moutains)

No, SOME peak demand is supplied by pumped storage schemes

Thats what I said.
Quite a lot and SOME have the same meaning.


and by gas turbines which spin up in a few seconds.

That has not been the practice in the UK for about 30 years, they
didn't even run during the miners strike in the 80's

That's odd, they built the one three miles from me since then.

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:36:52 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wittered as usual:

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
.. .

100bhp from a petrol 1.6? get real.

The 100bhp mark in a 1.6 was passed many moons ago,

Lord Hall, what is the average BHP for 1600s on the market?

No idea, do your own research I can't be arsed.

Lord Hall, but you were saying 1600s produce more BHP than the QE2.

As you drive around in
your glorified washing machine ponder the fact that with forced
induction and toxic jungle juice they were getting around 1500bhp out
of a 1.5 litre back in the 1980's.

Does that mean a 1600cc today can drive a tanker?

Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

The Passat, like all mass market vehicles on sale today meets the
latest EU4 emission regulations: 749 mile range, 0-62 in 9.8 seconds,
130mph and a combined cycle mpg of 48.7. On finding out these facts
the devastated Toyota Prius designer has just picked up his sword as
the words "game over" flashed in front of his eyes.

Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:36:52 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

Yes, it pollutes

I said: "The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't pollute like hell in towns."
That is very clear.

Andy Hall wrote:

So not suitable for our friend, Basildon Bond, then......

Maybe they could do an enhanced version with free velvet jacket and a
cravat.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:13:31 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Matt" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:11:37 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Quite a lot of peak demand is supplied by stored water generation (inside
welsh moutains)

No, SOME peak demand is supplied by pumped storage schemes

Thats what I said.
Quite a lot and SOME have the same meaning.

No, they will not routinely use the pumped storage capacity for peak
demand because if a conventional generator is lost or there is an
overhead line circuit fault the system could quite rapidly become
unstable. Some peak demand is met by pumped storage but "quite a lot"
would be very severely overstating the case.

For instance, maybe like today, on a typical winter day with plenty of
spare conventional capacity declared available (no constraints) the
contribution from pumped storage at peak would be NIL (remembering
that like every day there will still be a peak demand that is way in
excess of the minimum demand). On unexpected loss of say 500MW of
generation 30 minutes before a peak then pumped storage generation may
be rescheduled to be 200MW, the rest being achieved by picking up load
earlier on other conventional plant, some of the remainder of the
pumped generation may be spinning in air so that loading can be
rapidly achieved, but it won't generate beyond this because of the
increased costs associated with pumped storage. Basically if demand
can be easily met by conventional plant then it will. The huge peaks
so often referred to in publicity blub are in reality a few times a
decade occurance (football/burying royals etc)

and by gas turbines which spin up in a few seconds.

That has not been the practice in the UK for about 30 years, they
didn't even run during the miners strike in the 80's

That's odd, they built the one three miles from me since then.

No, the last gas turbines added to the UK system would have been at
Torness in around 1988 and Sizewell B in 1996, neither are fuelled by
gas but can run up to be on load in around 2 minutes. A gas turbine
in any historical sense related to the UK power industry was always
fuelled by gas oil, a heavier fraction than aviation fuel, and never,
ever by gas. So unless you live next to those two nuclear sites what
they will have actually built near you is a combined cycle gas fired
station which CANNOT be loaded in anything like a "few seconds"


--

Its just too early in the morning for me to think about something like
that let me get some coffee first.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

I know what you mean Bertie. The Espace came bottom of the 170 car Top
Gear
survey.

Ahh, it doesn't surprise me that you have faith in surveys John, I had
the Espace for 2 years and the only thing that went wrong with it was a
rock through the oil cooler, it was easily the most satisfying and
versatile "car"

Bertie, I'm sure you did think that, but you are about the only one who has
then.

So? it works for me (a bit like your electronic descaler John)
I'm not a sheep, I make my own decisions, don't follow the crowd and
don't take too much notice of surveys.

--
David

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Lord Hall, you are clearly mad. The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

So

A shame isn't it. He is psychedelic you know.

** snip senility **

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:31:01 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:36:52 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The Prius averages 60mpg, and doesn't
pollute like hell in towns.

Yes, it pollutes

I said:

*** snip drivel drivvilings ***

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:27:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:50:09 GMT, dennis@home wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

The electricity it uses is overnight which normally would be wasted, that
is
why they offer economy 7 and 19 and 34, etc, when using overnight
electricity.


The electricity isn't wasted at night.

Actually it is.

The power stations are essentially idling at the great traffic lights of
consumer demand. Since they take a LOT of hours to come on line, they have
to be left at idle.

Overnight charging of cars wold make a LOT of difference in sommothing out
demand curves for electricity,and utilse the existing infratsructure to far
greater overall cost benefit.

It is just capacity that is not earning revenue at night.

Its better to reduce the daytime demand and use more of the capacity at
night.
This is why storage heaters were invented.

Yes. biut not because its capacity thats is not earning revenue, its
becasue it is capacity that is costing money and fuel to keep running.

Is two shifting of steam turbine power stations not practiced anymore?
Gas turbine machines run up and load very quickly and are not normally
operated at part load.

There is a cost attached to two shifting but the cost is much less
than maintaining a machine on 'spinning reserve'. Nuclear plants are
base load and cannot be 'two shifted'.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:24:52 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


Ahh, it doesn't surprise me that you have faith in surveys John, I had
the Espace for 2 years and the only thing that went wrong with it was a
rock through the oil cooler, it was easily the most satisfying and
versatile "car"

Bertie, I'm sure you did think that, but you are about the only one who has
then.

As did my ex Boss who ran one as a Support Manager / Engineer and as a
family utility vehicle. Did over 100k miles in a few years with little
attention.

So that's two happy Espace owners .. same as the number of members in
the Prius owners club. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m