Car firms 'blocking green fuel' (BBC News)

[Up2Late]

(Thank you Professor Obvious.) :eyes:

Friday, 27 January 2006, 13:25 GMT

Car firms 'blocking green fuel'

Car makers are not doing enough to develop green alternatives to petrol, an influential government adviser says.

Japanese companies had a better record than European or American ones, Professor Stephen Blythe said. But the industry had still not grasped the urgency of the problem - despite promoting its green credentials.

A car industry spokesman said the government could do a lot more to encourage the development of alternative fuels such as hydrogen. "It is not just a question of manufacturers developing the technology. All of the parties involved in future fuel technology must play their part," said Nigel Wannacott, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Bio-fuel

Mr Wannacott said Japanese manufacturers had led the way on hybrid electric and petrol cars but all major manufacturers were developing hydrogen and bio-fuel engines. He urged the government to provide incentives and build infrastructure to encourage the take-up of hydrogen, which he said was about 15 to 20 years away.


But Professor Blythe, who is one of the key contributors to the government future transport strategy, claimed it was the manufacturers who were dragging their feet. "We have had a lot of meetings with car companies, who promote their green credentials - but they say we are not going to do much for the next 20 to 30 years because our customers don't want to pay more.

(more at link below)

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4651562.stm>

[Javaman]

1. Because, if the oil companies get into the corn biz, the agracorps...

will be really pissed off. Oil companies are the dinosaurs, the agracorps will be the oil companies of the future.

[eppur_se_muova]

3. Some history...oil cos. knew ethanol would increase octane ratings, but...

they would have to add about 10% ethanol to gasoline to get the desired result. Since that represented 10% of your gas tank which was not under their control and making profit for them, they felt they HAD to find an alternative -- something which would supress knocking and lead to better burning of fuel (hence more use of cars, and more gasoline sales), but not by replacing THEIR product, even partially. What they developed was leaded gasoline. This was pushed to market despite the known toxicity of lead, and despite the fact that a number of employees (16-17, IIRC) suffered debilitating effects of lead poisoning during the plant startup and had to be commited to mental hospitals. (The company claimed they had put themselves under so much stress that they had driven themselves crazy trying to get the plant ready in time!)

Read more about this in "When Smoke Ran Like Water", by Devra Davis.

[skids]

2. Wow, hydrogen nutters out in force lately.

Is it me or is there a major PR and astroturf campaign for hydrogen lately?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for biofuels including methanol fuel cells, and really supportive of mostly-electric PHEVs, just hydrogen isn't the way to do it, in my not so humble opinion.

(What we need is really simple: biodiesel PHEVs. How we get it is also realy simple: be watchful that BushCo doesn't trash the low-sulfur diesel regulations before they take effect. At that point PZEV deisel hybrids will be economical for car manufacturers to produce. After that, waste heat recovery and HFI would be nice to see in the market.)

[Up2Late]

6. hydrogen nutters!?! PLEASE!!! I don't disagree with you about BioDiesel

BioDiesel is definitely something that should be pushed hard as an alternative to the E85 BullSh*t that is currently being force down our collective throats by the Rethugs and the Farm Lobby, Ford, GM and the Oil industry, but only as a temporary measure until Hydrogen gets further down the development road.

Sounds like you need to get your head out of the 1990's and get up to speed on how far down the development road 100% Green Hydrogen is. If we could rid our government of all these Oil Corp wet nurses, and had a President and Congress that got serious about investing in development and deployment of Hydrogen technology, Hydrogen could be up to speed in 5 to 10 years.

And No, I'm not talking "hydrogen via Nuclear Power, or Hydrogen through Natural Gas, or Hydrogen through Oil, I'm talking Hydrogen from Water via Solar or Wind or geo-thermal energy.

Here are some links for you to explore, not that I expect you will, people who start their post with ignorant, insulting name calling usually don't, seeing how name callers usually figure they already know everything already.

<http://www.hydrogenics.com/>

<http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050831.AbuOmar.hydrogen.html>

<http://www.ballard.com/>

<http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/ecobus/1206.asp>

<http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/fuel-cell-buses.asp>

<http://www.solatecllc.com/products.htm>

<http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SiteMap2/category_id=2>

<[http://4hydrogen.com/>

[skids]

7. Actually, most of your links are purple to me.

Been there, done that. I still don't buy it. Hydrogen, in and of itself, offers a few advantages that may be applicable in some very niche markets. PEM -- useful. Hydrogen PEM -- not neccessary for most applications.

[megatherium]

8. Using solar to produce hydrogen would work.

Problem is it is a lot more expensive than fossil fuels. You might think that fossil fuels will get more expensive, and solar less expensive, and that soon the two curves will cross. But there's a lot of coal out there. Global warming will tear the world's ecosystems apart, but as long as there is $3 or $4 dollar a gallon gasoline, Americans will still drive their trucks (grumbling about gas prices all the while).

[Strelnikov_]

4. Add The $100 In Components To A Prius

and you have a 'biofuel' (E85) hybrid.

[Strelnikov_]

5. I Pick 3 - Tribal Trading

The report includes four alternative scenarios of what life might be like in 50 years time to help industry and government plan future transport infrastructure.

The scenarios are:

* Perpetual motion - Demand for travel remains strong thanks to continued globalisation and growth. Cars have got faster but more green, air travel still popular but expensive.

* Urban colonies - Environment top priority for government. Car use expensive and restricted. Public transport widely used but rural areas lose out.

* Tribal trading - Energy crisis has caused mass unemployment. Long distance travel a luxury few can afford. World has shrunk to local communities for most people.

* Good intentions - Tough government measures restrict carbon emissions. Traffic volumes have fallen but the market has failed to provide new energy sources.