Jump to content


Photo

Green Madness: Uk Alone In Banning New Petrol And Diesel Cars In 2030


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#16 MatthewsDad

MatthewsDad

    Super Mini Mad

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location: Warrington

Posted 08 May 2022 - 09:03 AM

About 90% of EV battery cells are theoretically recyclable, but in practice no-one gets anywhere near achieving this. It's complicated, hazardous and not commercially viable, and EU law doesn't require this level of recovery. The up-front and end of life impacts of EVs are conveniently overlooked by many.

#17 Aly-g

Aly-g

    Mini Mad

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Location: LONDON
  • Local Club: if only i knew one

Posted 10 May 2022 - 11:39 PM

I'm sure hydrogen is the green future for the car but I probably won't be around to see it, EV s are never going to work and are certainly not green, the government just doesn't seem to understand about carbon emissions in real terms.

Allan

#18 bikewiz

bikewiz

    Mini Mad

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
  • Local Club: NEMO

Posted 11 May 2022 - 01:59 AM

Conversations like these are probably similar to ones in say 1905 "The horse and buggy will never go away, they're too reliable and where are you going to get gasoline"

 

Technology and progress march on. Remember the first cordless drills with NiCad batteries? Jump ahead 30 years from a 9.7v Makita to what they offer today..........



#19 IronmanG

IronmanG

    One Carb Or Two?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Location: Crawley
  • Local Club: Box hill. Lsmoc member

Posted 11 May 2022 - 05:44 AM

Conversations like these are probably similar to ones in say 1905 "The horse and buggy will never go away, they're too reliable and where are you going to get gasoline"

Technology and progress march on. Remember the first cordless drills with NiCad batteries? Jump ahead 30 years from a 9.7v Makita to what they offer today..........


Exactly.

#20 panky

panky

    Camshaft & Stage Two Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Location: Cheshire
  • Local Club: Northwest Casual Classics

Posted 11 May 2022 - 10:38 AM

I'm sure hydrogen is the green future for the car but I probably won't be around to see it, EV s are never going to work and are certainly not green, the government just doesn't seem to understand about carbon emissions in real terms.

Allan

I operated a high purity hydrogen plant for many years and believe me they are energy greedy. For hydrogen to be a viable fuel source a method needs to be found to manufacture it cheaply and cleanly and not use fossil fuels as a feedstock. There is a pilot plant in North Wales using shredded plastic as a feed stock but not heard anything about how efficient it is. 



#21 Ethel

Ethel

    ..is NOT a girl!

  • TMF Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,572 posts
  • Local Club: none

Posted 11 May 2022 - 10:47 AM

There's a lot of money made from selling energy & it'd be far easier to monopolise it with a physical product, like hydrogen.

 

Remember the first rule of thermodynamics club - energy is always conserved, efficiency is all down how much you get to do what you want when you transfer it from one state to another. The fewer the transfers the less opportunity for loss.

 

We're ultimately talking about Solar radiation* as the starting point (even for fossil fuels). Electricity is by far the most direct way we have for harvesting that, either directly or from the environmental processes it drives naturally.

 

*shout out for gravity too, interesting developments happening with tidal.



#22 Ethel

Ethel

    ..is NOT a girl!

  • TMF Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,572 posts
  • Local Club: none

Posted 11 May 2022 - 10:51 AM

 

I'm sure hydrogen is the green future for the car but I probably won't be around to see it, EV s are never going to work and are certainly not green, the government just doesn't seem to understand about carbon emissions in real terms.

Allan

I operated a high purity hydrogen plant for many years and believe me they are energy greedy. For hydrogen to be a viable fuel source a method needs to be found to manufacture it cheaply and cleanly and not use fossil fuels as a feedstock. There is a pilot plant in North Wales using shredded plastic as a feed stock but not heard anything about how efficient it is. 

 

Hydrogen may have a place because of its energy density, but that will only be where storage capacity & density itself are factors - like aviation.



#23 MarkR

MarkR

    Learner Driver

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Location: Bergen
  • Local Club: Bergen Mini Club

Posted 12 May 2022 - 07:26 AM

Conversations like these are probably similar to ones in say 1905 "The horse and buggy will never go away, they're too reliable and where are you going to get gasoline"

 

Technology and progress march on. Remember the first cordless drills with NiCad batteries? Jump ahead 30 years from a 9.7v Makita to what they offer today..........

Exactly. All it needs is the infrastructure. Here in Norway nearly all new cars are electric or plug in hybrids. I spoke to a friend in car sales recently and asked if they actually sell fossil driven cars anymore. His reply was "Once in a while".



#24 KTS

KTS

    Camshaft & Stage Two Head

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Location: Herts

Posted 12 May 2022 - 08:40 AM

There's a lot of money made from selling energy & it'd be far easier to monopolise it with a physical product, like hydrogen.
 
Remember the first rule of thermodynamics club - energy is always conserved, efficiency is all down how much you get to do what you want when you transfer it from one state to another. The fewer the transfers the less opportunity for loss.
 
We're ultimately talking about Solar radiation* as the starting point (even for fossil fuels). Electricity is by far the most direct way we have for harvesting that, either directly or from the environmental processes it drives naturally.
 
*shout out for gravity too, interesting developments happening with tidal.


..and geothermal too !

#25 sonikk4

sonikk4

    Twisted Paint Polisher!!!

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,527 posts
  • Name: Neil
  • Location: Oxfordshire

Posted 12 May 2022 - 10:56 AM

With Aircraft and we are talking commercial, we are a long way off from anything other than Fossil fuel to power them. 

 

There is talk and has been for a while about removable battery packs so on landing once on the jetty packs are replaced for charged ones etc. BUT the biggest issue here is weight and power production.

 

Considering a modern twin commercial Aircraft like either the latest kids on the block the A350 and B787 both have thrust ratings per engine from 74,000 lbs to 97,000 lbs so you would need an electrically powered ducted fan rated at this x2. So using these aircraft as a baseline each carrying upwards of 300 passengers plus cargo (a lot of cargo is carried over and above passengers and their luggage) the range needed for transatlantic routes as a minimum, the power required would far surpass anything we currently have available at this point in time.

 

I can hear the argument about weight of fuel being transposed with weight of batteries etc BUT and its a big BUT the realisation is this, the majority of fuel is carried in the wings. (we do have centre tanks as well) The way modern wings are built on composite aircraft like the 350 and 787 means the wings could not have battery packs installed in them due to the amount of flex.

 

So that means then the batteries will have to go in the fuselage. Now a lot of people may think there is a lot of unused space in the fuselage other than the cabin. So yes there is the two cargo holds. Now these would be the ideal place to have removable battery packs as the holds are designed for ease of access for cargo, luggage containers etc. But then if the packs are very large then you loose the freight capability and a big chunk of income (pertinent at this point in time as this is what has kept a lot of Airlines afloat)

 

Other areas have the Air conditioning packs, toilet tanks, potable water, Avionics bays, undercarriage and so forth. So its congested and Aircraft companies like to cram as much equipment as possible into smaller and smaller areas.

 

So a fully Electric powered  large commercial Aircraft would have to be a scratch built concept, the current aircraft on the market and i am still talking modern commercial passenger aircraft would be highly unlikely retrofitted IF something did ultimately become available.

 

So that brings us to Hydrogen. So things have moved forward massively from the days of Hydrogen filled Airships that did go bang but again still bring a massive change in design as to carry enough Hydrogen to power one of the aforementioned Aircraft will mean the Hydrogen has to be kept in liquid state so cryogenically kept at -252c. I can begin to guess at what equipment will be needed, the way the Hydrogen will be stored and so on. Plus from an engineering point of view ie maintenance a whole change in working practises.

 

Fossil fuel will be powering large commercial Airliners for the foreseeable future but never say never.



#26 Ethel

Ethel

    ..is NOT a girl!

  • TMF Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,572 posts
  • Local Club: none

Posted 12 May 2022 - 11:03 AM

 

 


..and geothermal too !

 

I only recently learned geothermal is generated by gravity. Using hot stuff for heating has to take some beating for efficiency.



#27 Ethel

Ethel

    ..is NOT a girl!

  • TMF Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,572 posts
  • Local Club: none

Posted 12 May 2022 - 11:17 AM

With Aircraft and we are talking commercial, we are a long way off from anything other than Fossil fuel to power them. 

 

There is talk and has been for a while about removable battery packs so on landing once on the jetty packs are replaced for charged ones etc. BUT the biggest issue here is weight and power production.

 

Considering a modern twin commercial Aircraft like either the latest kids on the block the A350 and B787 both have thrust ratings per engine from 74,000 lbs to 97,000 lbs so you would need an electrically powered ducted fan rated at this x2. So using these aircraft as a baseline each carrying upwards of 300 passengers plus cargo (a lot of cargo is carried over and above passengers and their luggage) the range needed for transatlantic routes as a minimum, the power required would far surpass anything we currently have available at this point in time.

 

I can hear the argument about weight of fuel being transposed with weight of batteries etc BUT and its a big BUT the realisation is this, the majority of fuel is carried in the wings. (we do have centre tanks as well) The way modern wings are built on composite aircraft like the 350 and 787 means the wings could not have battery packs installed in them due to the amount of flex.

 

So that means then the batteries will have to go in the fuselage. Now a lot of people may think there is a lot of unused space in the fuselage other than the cabin. So yes there is the two cargo holds. Now these would be the ideal place to have removable battery packs as the holds are designed for ease of access for cargo, luggage containers etc. But then if the packs are very large then you loose the freight capability and a big chunk of income (pertinent at this point in time as this is what has kept a lot of Airlines afloat)

 

Other areas have the Air conditioning packs, toilet tanks, potable water, Avionics bays, undercarriage and so forth. So its congested and Aircraft companies like to cram as much equipment as possible into smaller and smaller areas.

 

So a fully Electric powered  large commercial Aircraft would have to be a scratch built concept, the current aircraft on the market and i am still talking modern commercial passenger aircraft would be highly unlikely retrofitted IF something did ultimately become available.

 

So that brings us to Hydrogen. So things have moved forward massively from the days of Hydrogen filled Airships that did go bang but again still bring a massive change in design as to carry enough Hydrogen to power one of the aforementioned Aircraft will mean the Hydrogen has to be kept in liquid state so cryogenically kept at -252c. I can begin to guess at what equipment will be needed, the way the Hydrogen will be stored and so on. Plus from an engineering point of view ie maintenance a whole change in working practises.

 

Fossil fuel will be powering large commercial Airliners for the foreseeable future but never say never.

Hydrogen peroxide?

 

How about  electro magnetically assisted take off, that be fun!



#28 sonikk4

sonikk4

    Twisted Paint Polisher!!!

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,527 posts
  • Name: Neil
  • Location: Oxfordshire

Posted 12 May 2022 - 12:25 PM

With Aircraft and we are talking commercial, we are a long way off from anything other than Fossil fuel to power them. 
 
There is talk and has been for a while about removable battery packs so on landing once on the jetty packs are replaced for charged ones etc. BUT the biggest issue here is weight and power production.
 
Considering a modern twin commercial Aircraft like either the latest kids on the block the A350 and B787 both have thrust ratings per engine from 74,000 lbs to 97,000 lbs so you would need an electrically powered ducted fan rated at this x2. So using these aircraft as a baseline each carrying upwards of 300 passengers plus cargo (a lot of cargo is carried over and above passengers and their luggage) the range needed for transatlantic routes as a minimum, the power required would far surpass anything we currently have available at this point in time.
 
I can hear the argument about weight of fuel being transposed with weight of batteries etc BUT and its a big BUT the realisation is this, the majority of fuel is carried in the wings. (we do have centre tanks as well) The way modern wings are built on composite aircraft like the 350 and 787 means the wings could not have battery packs installed in them due to the amount of flex.
 
So that means then the batteries will have to go in the fuselage. Now a lot of people may think there is a lot of unused space in the fuselage other than the cabin. So yes there is the two cargo holds. Now these would be the ideal place to have removable battery packs as the holds are designed for ease of access for cargo, luggage containers etc. But then if the packs are very large then you loose the freight capability and a big chunk of income (pertinent at this point in time as this is what has kept a lot of Airlines afloat)
 
Other areas have the Air conditioning packs, toilet tanks, potable water, Avionics bays, undercarriage and so forth. So its congested and Aircraft companies like to cram as much equipment as possible into smaller and smaller areas.
 
So a fully Electric powered  large commercial Aircraft would have to be a scratch built concept, the current aircraft on the market and i am still talking modern commercial passenger aircraft would be highly unlikely retrofitted IF something did ultimately become available.
 
So that brings us to Hydrogen. So things have moved forward massively from the days of Hydrogen filled Airships that did go bang but again still bring a massive change in design as to carry enough Hydrogen to power one of the aforementioned Aircraft will mean the Hydrogen has to be kept in liquid state so cryogenically kept at -252c. I can begin to guess at what equipment will be needed, the way the Hydrogen will be stored and so on. Plus from an engineering point of view ie maintenance a whole change in working practises.
 
Fossil fuel will be powering large commercial Airliners for the foreseeable future but never say never.

Hydrogen peroxide?
 
How about  electro magnetically assisted take off, that be fun!

Hydrogen peroxide rocket ship stylee. And as for the mag rail take off, I can imagine the trolley dollies saying “ hang on to your teeth this is going to be one hell of a ride”

But seriously, anything Aviation is seriously expensive and costs dramatically increase with new technology. We see that now more than ever. So for the moment unless something drastically changes certainly for the next couple of decades there won’t be much change.

#29 Steam

Steam

    Mini Mad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Location: Vic
  • Local Club: Victorian Mini Club

Posted 13 May 2022 - 01:55 AM

Given that the general consensus 8s that airtravel will be by fossil fuel for the forseable future, would anyone like to estimate how many car tanks of gas equals a transatlantic flight?

#30 sonikk4

sonikk4

    Twisted Paint Polisher!!!

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,527 posts
  • Name: Neil
  • Location: Oxfordshire

Posted 13 May 2022 - 01:16 PM

61042 gallons equals approx 98 tons of fuel which is normally what a B747-400 uses to get to Orlando.

So the largest mini fuel tank takes 7.5 gals so 61042 = 8138 tanks. However you could also take into consideration the specific gravity of fuel on the day which could increase or decrease this figure.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Mini Spares