now heres a thought,if everycar/bus/lorry in the uk was electric......how many wind farms would need to be built....i reckon everyone would need one of the really big ones in there back garden/yard....hmmmmmmmm 
Electric Car
- Thread starter Footie
- Start date
I agree with those objections John, but there's also the same problems with batteries which have to be recycled, transported and disposed of in the same way, and they are much heavier. The cleanliness control of central generation isn't relevant here since fuel cells don't generate pollution while running, just water.
As ever it will be what the customer buys that will be the decider, and the performance, range, and instant refilling of a fuel cell vehicle will always give it the advantage over anything that carries it's power stored in batteries. We couldn't run battery buses around London with anything like the efficiency and costs of the hydrogen ones we're running now.
We just need the generating capacity from the power stations to produce the hydrogen and fuel cells are ready now, unlike batteries.
.
As ever it will be what the customer buys that will be the decider, and the performance, range, and instant refilling of a fuel cell vehicle will always give it the advantage over anything that carries it's power stored in batteries. We couldn't run battery buses around London with anything like the efficiency and costs of the hydrogen ones we're running now.
We just need the generating capacity from the power stations to produce the hydrogen and fuel cells are ready now, unlike batteries.
.
Last edited:
None at all. Nuclear power can do the job easily.now heres a thought,if everycar/bus/lorry in the uk was electric......how many wind farms would need to be built....i reckon everyone would need one of the really big ones in there back garden/yard....hmmmmmmmm
.
ok....point taken...how many nuclear ones then.........None at all. Nuclear power can do the job easily.
.
Lots and lots, just like France who supply 10% of our power and about 80% of Italy's power with them, while looking after 78% of their own needs that way. They also have hydro and some wind.
That's how we should have spent the North Sea oil windfall, building a chain like that, instead of squandering it on "defence" (attack) and wars elsewhere from the Falklands onwards.
.
That's how we should have spent the North Sea oil windfall, building a chain like that, instead of squandering it on "defence" (attack) and wars elsewhere from the Falklands onwards.
.
Last edited:
Sorry Flecc, and please forgive my ignorance, I was under the impression that current trends in Fuel Cell manufacture were for 'pre-filled' cells, meaning that refueling stations were to be centralised, and that people would be swapping over fuel cells akin to Calor Gas bottles.
If they can indeed be refuelled, then that does take things in a different direction. However it doesnt stop the central problem, that of we will still need tankers transporting the fuel all over the UK.
You dont need that with a battery.
As I said, I think we should be looking for the battery technology we need, and using electricity from the national grid. I'm still yet to be convinced on this.
As regards the Nuclear debate, I just dont agree that we should use a technology that we cant control the waste product of. We have had 50 years of investment in cleaning the wastes from this, and we still dont have a clue. I would not be happy to see a long term investment in Nuclear until we can control the wastes produced.
I firmly believe that water is where we should be investing. I believe that we should move away from a National Power grid of say 100's of huge power stations, to a grid of 1,000's or even 10,000's of smaller local ones, using every bit of technology available down to even what the Henshaws have done, everywhere that we can (every home, factory, river and stream.
There are great opportunities to generate electricity from river flow,ocean currents and tidal flow. If we had the investment that we are planning to put into Nuclear over the next 25 years put into this type of technology for our wet island, I think we could do it, cleanly, and learn a lot in the process.
The big technology companies wont invest as they would lose their monopolies on the technology, they want you to invest in their 'patented' technologies only as then they have the stranglehold for the next 20 years, and government and academia are guided by these multinationals.
200 years ago, we had no electricity but we managed to have an idustrial revolution country wide based only on water power. I'm sure we could do more today.
Sorry for the rant
John
Rant away John, it's a fascinating subject.
I agree on micro-generation of course, we should use what we can, but it wont deal with industry, commerce and other big city requirements and we'll still need the mass from bulk generation.
As said, transporting the hydrogen is not a problem since tankers will be running on hydrogen with water as the waste product. The biggest problem I find is getting people to stop thinking in oil terms, transport doesn't have to pollute, so batteries have no absolute advantage there.
I agree on using bulk electricity for transport as well of course, and here railways have a valuable part to play, replacing trucks and the high speed trains replacing aircraft too for many journeys.
I've no rooted objection to batteries, but I believe that physics will alway put them at a big disadvantage, there being finite limits to the containment of electricity.
On nuclear, the waste problem is a myth, its not a problem. I've just answered it in the peak fuel thread here so I won't repeat it.
.
I agree on micro-generation of course, we should use what we can, but it wont deal with industry, commerce and other big city requirements and we'll still need the mass from bulk generation.
As said, transporting the hydrogen is not a problem since tankers will be running on hydrogen with water as the waste product. The biggest problem I find is getting people to stop thinking in oil terms, transport doesn't have to pollute, so batteries have no absolute advantage there.
I agree on using bulk electricity for transport as well of course, and here railways have a valuable part to play, replacing trucks and the high speed trains replacing aircraft too for many journeys.
I've no rooted objection to batteries, but I believe that physics will alway put them at a big disadvantage, there being finite limits to the containment of electricity.
On nuclear, the waste problem is a myth, its not a problem. I've just answered it in the peak fuel thread here so I won't repeat it.
.
Perhaps the Morgan LIFEcar is more appealing?
http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/lifecar/lifecar_final_web_d.pdf
http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/lifecar/lifecar_final_web_d.pdf