If the electric bus drawing electricity

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

Carryfast:
Orys physics says that it’s more expensive and less efficient to convert fossil fuel into electricity and then transmit it over miles of expensive cabling and then turn it back into motive force at the wheels while electric drive componentry is usually also more expensive to maintain than a conventional IC engine and transmission.While nuclear power generation is even more expensive.

Physics (that I studied for three years) also say that

Engine/Motor energy conversion efficiency
Combustion engine 10—50%
Electric motors 70—99.99% (above 200W); 50—90% (between 10—200W); 30—60% (small ones < 10W)

This is why electric trains replace diesel trains.

That’s why the towns here aren’t still full of trolley buses running around like in the 1930’s-1950’s. :bulb:

Some are:

The towns that haven’t followed the 50 and 60 trend of replacing everything with buses are very happy with their networks and they further develop their network and technology. It is just too expensive to rebuild the network from scratch, but due to rising costs of diesel and small capacity of buses compared to trams, some towns decide to do just that (see Edinburgh trams, altough that might be not the best example as I got a feeling that the trams there are build by Muppets).

22

orys:

Carryfast:
Maybe they’d work in Switzerland with cheap hydro electricity but turning coal or whatever into electricity and then transmitting it and then turning it into motive effort at the wheels costs more in fuel costs and maintenance than just fitting the thing with a proper engine and transmission.

Tell me then - why bother to electrificate the train lines, if diesel engines that just have proper engine fitted, would be better and cheaper?

Nuclear generated electricity is even more expensive than coal and a a bit of pollution from an engine isn’t exactly as bad as nuclear waste or the results of a nuclear power station accident.

How much nuclear power station accidents happened so far? Remind you Chernobyl was a human deliberate breaking of the several stages of safety procedures, Fukushima is holding great if you consider how hard it was hit compared to what it was designed to and apart from Three Mile Island, where, agian, the effect were multiplied by the human mistakes and even despite that it wasn’t a big deal. I am quite familiar with the subject, but I just don’t want to start another discussion on nuclear energetics (and especially with you, as you alwas seems to know everything best).

I would just give you few facts:

  • if you check how many people die per unit of energy, you’ll find that nuclear energetics is the safest. Even windfarms are more dangerous due to accidents when constructing them
  • burning coal also emits nuclear isotopes, but, unlike as it happens with nuclear waste, it is not stored safely, but just spread to the atmosphere… My friend did PhD in geology and she found out that Kraków market square is much worse polluted by nuclear isotopes than most of Chernobyl zone (and it’s just because she works in Kraków, I would guess that would be true to many other places near to big coal plants/steelmills etc).

It’s fascinating how people are afraid of the technology they could not understand… The most funny bit for me is that after Fukushima accident, that kill few people, all Europe goes panic and everyone suddenly want to scrap nuclear technology… But when in Japan 1000s of people died because of Tsunami waves, noone postulate abandon building houses on the coast… Nor nobody opposes chemical plants after that accident in India that killed 20000 people in 70s… :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=M3BpKUD-Et0

10.06-13.20

Oh, yes, that sums it up, trolleybuses are bad today, because we do have completely the same conditions today and the same factors should be considered as they were in 1950 Britain :unamused:

Firstly diesel engined trains are electric transmission because it’s not practical to transmit that much torque using conventional transmissions.So there’s nothing to be gained and in the case of train lines it’s also more practical and cost effective to electrify the lines than doing the same throughout the road system.But the fact remains a truck or bus would require more energy to be burnt at the power station to provide the same amount of power at the wheels than would need to be burnt to provide that same power using a conventional diesel engine and transmission.

The differences in cost at the moment are all about taxation policy.If road fuel and electricity were taxed the same with a level playing field it would be IC engine powered vehicles that would win every time in a like with like comparision of similar power outputs and that’s even before maintenance costs are taken into account.

As for nuclear power the fact is we’ve been using coal for years and cancer seems to have become an epidemic since the introduction of nuclear technology compared to before that time.While casualty statistics concerning nuclear energy are clouded by the issue of causation in which the government and nuclear industry just wash their hands of the issue by blaming everything else.Not surprising considering that nuclear power generation is an essential part of nuclear weapons production and maintenance.But whatever the arguments a serious nuclear accident has the potential to cause damage and casualties on a massive scale and seems even more stupid in a small highly populated country in which we need every acre of land we’ve got to feed and house ourselves without risking poisoning the place for years.The Germans have got it right on the nuclear issue.

23

orys:

Carryfast:
Orys physics says that it’s more expensive and less efficient to convert fossil fuel into electricity and then transmit it over miles of expensive cabling and then turn it back into motive force at the wheels while electric drive componentry is usually also more expensive to maintain than a conventional IC engine and transmission.While nuclear power generation is even more expensive.

Physics (that I studied for three years) also say that

Engine/Motor energy conversion efficiency
Combustion engine 10—50%
Electric motors 70—99.99% (above 200W); 50—90% (between 10—200W); 30—60% (small ones < 10W)

This is why electric trains replace diesel trains.

The efficiency of an electric motor isn’t the same thing as fuel eficiency from the fuel required to be burnt at the power station compared to the power provided at the wheels.It’s the conversion factor and generation and transmission losses from power station to driven wheels that matters.It would cost you more energy in coal,to provide the same amount of power at the wheels,using a trolley bus,than it would cost me,in diesel,to provide the same power using a conventional IC engine and transmission.

As for trains as I said ‘diesel’ trains are effectively ‘electric’ trains.

24

Just to add my 2p, I think guided bus ways are a good idea such as the one the one in Cambridge. I don’t like Trolleybuses as their current collection system is complex particularly at junctions and I bet they frequently lose contact with the wire. Also using rubber tyres is very inefficient. Trams on the other hand can regenerate energy when braking and can use railway alignments and run at higher speeds very efficiently.

Just a small note whist diesel-electric transmission is common in locomotives, many diesel multiple unit passenger trains use a diesel mechanical transmission as they have smaller engines under each car. The class 172 uses a 6 speed ZF ecomat transmission.

25

Oh, yes, you never fail to amuse me :slight_smile:

Firstly diesel engined trains are electric transmission because it’s not practical to transmit that much torque using conventional transmissions.

Exactly. So please, explain to me, how is that it is cheaper to use train engine that has electric motors powered by the overhead cable, than the train engine that has electric motors powered by diesel generator on board? :slight_smile:

So there’s nothing to be gained and in the case of train lines it’s also more practical and cost effective to electrify the lines than doing the same throughout the road system.

Yeah. Beacause it does much difference if you overhead wires over tracks or road :wink:

But the fact remains a truck or bus would require more energy to be burnt at the power station to provide the same amount of power at the wheels than would need to be burnt to provide that same power using a conventional diesel engine and transmission.

But energy from the power station is much cheaper than energy generated on board. That’s why we all have British Power (other providers available) connections at our homes, instead of using diesel generators running in our back yards. That’s why running electric car is much cheaper than running a petrol car and the range is the biggest problem (which does not apply to troleybuses, as they go along the prepared track and draw electricity from the cables on the run).

The differences in cost at the moment are all about taxation policy.If road fuel and electricity were taxed the same with a level playing field it would be IC engine powered vehicles that would win every time in a like with like comparision of similar power outputs and that’s even before maintenance costs are taken into account.

Here we are, back to the conspiracy theory involving foverments :wink:

As for mainenance costs, i dare to tell that electric engine requires much less maintenance than combustion engine :wink:

As for nuclear power the fact is we’ve been using coal for years and cancer seems to have become an epidemic since the introduction of nuclear technology compared to before that time.While casualty statistics concerning nuclear energy are clouded by the issue of causation in which the government and nuclear industry just wash their hands of the issue by blaming everything else.Not surprising considering that nuclear power generation is an essential part of nuclear weapons production and maintenance.But whatever the arguments a serious nuclear accident has the potential to cause damage and casualties on a massive scale and seems even more stupid in a small highly populated country in which we need every acre of land we’ve got to feed and house ourselves without risking poisoning the place for years.The Germans have got it right on the nuclear issue.

Yeah, and what about cancer development in countries that DO NOT have nuclear power at all, but do have coal burning plants? Growth of cancer rates are common for the whole world, and only some most developed countries use nuclear energy… (Except for Gabon that has the world’s only natural nuclear reactor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nu … on_reactor but no cancer epidemic somehow…)

Carryfast:
The efficiency of an electric motor isn’t the same thing as fuel eficiency from the fuel required to be burnt at the power station compared to the power provided at the wheels.It’s the conversion factor and generation and transmission losses from power station to driven wheels that matters.It would cost you more energy in coal,to provide the same amount of power at the wheels,using a trolley bus,than it would cost me,in diesel,to provide the same power using a conventional IC engine and transmission.

So I guess you are using diesel generator in your back yard to write this on your computer, as it’s cheaper? Or you are connected to national electricity network because govermnent conspiracy forced you to do so? :wink: Or it’s simply cheaper to buy energy from the system, even if you calculate the transport losses, because, simply, it’s much cheaper to generate electricity in big electric plants?

As for trains as I said ‘diesel’ trains are effectively ‘electric’ trains.

But as I said, it’s cheaper to run electric trains from overhead wires than from onboard diesel generator.

26

daveb0789:
I don’t like Trolleybuses as their current collection system is complex particularly at junctions

This is why the inventions like Gyrobus were developed… There are actually some tests made of troleybusses storing energy in capacitors or batteries that have overhead wires only on some stretches of their routes…

and I bet they frequently lose contact with the wire.

If the vehicle is mainained properly, it is very rare. It all comes to the force that pushes the panthographs upwards.

Trams on the other hand can regenerate energy when braking

From I know, the colection of braking energy was first implemented in trolleybuses.

27

orys:
Oh, yes, you never fail to amuse me :slight_smile:

Firstly diesel engined trains are electric transmission because it’s not practical to transmit that much torque using conventional transmissions.

Exactly. So please, explain to me, how is that it is cheaper to use train engine that has electric motors powered by the overhead cable, than the train engine that has electric motors powered by diesel generator on board? :slight_smile:

So there’s nothing to be gained and in the case of train lines it’s also more practical and cost effective to electrify the lines than doing the same throughout the road system.

Yeah. Beacause it does much difference if you overhead wires over tracks or road :wink:

But the fact remains a truck or bus would require more energy to be burnt at the power station to provide the same amount of power at the wheels than would need to be burnt to provide that same power using a conventional diesel engine and transmission.

But energy from the power station is much cheaper than energy generated on board. That’s why we all have British Power (other providers available) connections at our homes, instead of using diesel generators running in our back yards. That’s why running electric car is much cheaper than running a petrol car and the range is the biggest problem (which does not apply to troleybuses, as they go along the prepared track and draw electricity from the cables on the run).

The differences in cost at the moment are all about taxation policy.If road fuel and electricity were taxed the same with a level playing field it would be IC engine powered vehicles that would win every time in a like with like comparision of similar power outputs and that’s even before maintenance costs are taken into account.

Here we are, back to the conspiracy theory involving foverments :wink:

As for mainenance costs, i dare to tell that electric engine requires much less maintenance than combustion engine :wink:

As for nuclear power the fact is we’ve been using coal for years and cancer seems to have become an epidemic since the introduction of nuclear technology compared to before that time.While casualty statistics concerning nuclear energy are clouded by the issue of causation in which the government and nuclear industry just wash their hands of the issue by blaming everything else.Not surprising considering that nuclear power generation is an essential part of nuclear weapons production and maintenance.But whatever the arguments a serious nuclear accident has the potential to cause damage and casualties on a massive scale and seems even more stupid in a small highly populated country in which we need every acre of land we’ve got to feed and house ourselves without risking poisoning the place for years.The Germans have got it right on the nuclear issue.

Yeah, and what about cancer development in countries that DO NOT have nuclear power at all, but do have coal burning plants? Growth of cancer rates are common for the whole world, and only some most developed countries use nuclear energy… (Except for Gabon that has the world’s only natural nuclear reactor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nu … on_reactor but no cancer epidemic somehow…)

I didn’t say that it’s a lot cheaper to use diesel electric than electrified lines for trains.What I did say is that for road vehicles it’s more fuel efficient to use an IC engine,with ‘conventional transmission’,not electric,than it is to use either diesel electric or electrified road systems as in the case of trolley buses.

The difference in taxation between domestic electricity supply compared to road fuel is fact not conspiracy theory.

As for the link between nuclear energy and cancer rates.The rates I’m referring to reflect the differences between pre nuclear and post nuclear era in the developed countries such as the US and Western Europe.Most,if not all,of which have had some dealings with nuclear energy to a lesser or greater degree.In addition to which can be added the increase in the general background levels throughout the world considering that there’s no way that they could have carried out that many bomb tests in the atmosphere amongst other possible accidental releases while keeping background levels the same as they were before nuclear energy had ever been invented.Not surprisingly no western government is likely to admit that the nuclear energy industry has added a significant nuclear toxicity to the general environment which we live in let alone admit that there’s any link between the cancer epidemic and nuclear energy.

28

Carryfast:
I didn’t say that it’s a lot cheaper to use diesel electric than electrified lines for trains.What I did say is that for road vehicles it’s more fuel efficient to use an IC engine,with ‘conventional transmission’,not electric,than it is to use either diesel electric or electrified road systems as in the case of trolley buses.

The difference in taxation between domestic electricity supply compared to road fuel is fact not conspiracy theory.

So as it is now, it’s MUCH cheaper to run troleybuses than buses. Example (first one that I googled): Data from Gdynia Public Transport company:
Troleybuses:
0.50 PLN per km outside peak hours (and I mean electricity peak, not rush hours on the road), morning peak hours (7-13 hrs) 0.63PLN/km, evening peak hours (19-22, hours vary depends of the time of the year) 0.86 PLN/km.

Average: 0.65 PLN per km.
Buses: 1.06 PLN per km for fuel only - and this is average for the whole network, on the lines with frequent stops - where troleybuses are mostly used - buses use much more fuel than average.

trolejbusy.strefa.pl/index1.htm on that website calculations are provided. Taking to the consideration that troleybuses cost 40% more to buy than buses, but can be used for longer, savings on energy and maintenance, etc. Case study shows that for 12 kms of troleybus network that is using 20 vehicles + 4 spare, the savings made compared to operated buses on the same network will return costs of construction and maintenance of electric infrastructure before the first generation of the vehicles will have to be replaced. Off course for bigger or more intensive used networks, the return of the costs will come quicker.

And then you have other, non-economical benefits such as less polution, less noise, better acceleration, better handling of steep hills. no need for engine oil (less polution), it’s better for harsh winters (unlike buses, it performs better in low temperatures), less use of brake pads (most of the braking is done with engine - and again, that means less pollution) etc.

I think this is a good option, especially that I happened to spent some time in towns with troleybus networks and they are much, much quieter than buses…

As for the link between nuclear energy and cancer rates.The rates I’m referring to reflect the differences between pre nuclear and post nuclear era in the developed countries such as the US and Western Europe.Most,if not all,of which have had some dealings with nuclear energy to a lesser or greater degree.In addition to which can be added the increase in the general background levels throughout the world considering that there’s no way that they could have carried out that many bomb tests in the atmosphere amongst other possible accidental releases while keeping background levels the same as they were before nuclear energy had ever been invented.Not surprisingly no western government is likely to admit that the nuclear energy industry has added a significant nuclear toxicity to the general environment which we live in let alone admit that there’s any link between the cancer epidemic and nuclear energy.

Did you considered other factors?

  • Post nuclear era has much more developed oncology, so much more cancer can be discovered
  • thanks to the nuclear technology we also have wide use of X-ray and other picturing technology, and this is now the main cause of exposion to the radiation for average people
  • thanks to growth in industries, much more coal is burned and that also issues radioactive isotopes to the atmosphere
  • there are other factors like more chemicals and conservants in food, new materials that proved to generate cancel (asbesthos for example) etc etc etc.
29

orys:

Carryfast:
I didn’t say that it’s a lot cheaper to use diesel electric than electrified lines for trains.What I did say is that for road vehicles it’s more fuel efficient to use an IC engine,with ‘conventional transmission’,not electric,than it is to use either diesel electric or electrified road systems as in the case of trolley buses.

The difference in taxation between domestic electricity supply compared to road fuel is fact not conspiracy theory.

So as it is now, it’s MUCH cheaper to run troleybuses than buses. Example (first one that I googled): Data from Gdynia Public Transport company:
Troleybuses:
0.50 PLN per km outside peak hours (and I mean electricity peak, not rush hours on the road), morning peak hours (7-13 hrs) 0.63PLN/km, evening peak hours (19-22, hours vary depends of the time of the year) 0.86 PLN/km.

Average: 0.65 PLN per km.
Buses: 1.06 PLN per km for fuel only - and this is average for the whole network, on the lines with frequent stops - where troleybuses are mostly used - buses use much more fuel than average.

trolejbusy.strefa.pl/index1.htm on that website calculations are provided. Taking to the consideration that troleybuses cost 40% more to buy than buses, but can be used for longer, savings on energy and maintenance, etc. Case study shows that for 12 kms of troleybus network that is using 20 vehicles + 4 spare, the savings made compared to operated buses on the same network will return costs of construction and maintenance of electric infrastructure before the first generation of the vehicles will have to be replaced. Off course for bigger or more intensive used networks, the return of the costs will come quicker.

And then you have other, non-economical benefits such as less polution, less noise, better acceleration, better handling of steep hills. no need for engine oil (less polution), it’s better for harsh winters (unlike buses, it performs better in low temperatures), less use of brake pads (most of the braking is done with engine - and again, that means less pollution) etc.

All of which is good in theory but history proves that it doesn’t work in practice. :open_mouth: :laughing:

You’ve provided the costs of running a conventional powered bus in which the costs of the fuel alone seem outweigh the total running costs of a trolley bus :question: .Which leaves the question of the levels of taxation applied to the road fuel compared to that of the electricity in view of the fact that a trolley bus wouldn’t travel as far on a gallon of diesel (or it’s equivalent in coal) burnt in a power station than a conventional bus would get on a gallon of diesel burnt in a diesel engine :question: .

While you can bet that the lost tax revenues here would be put onto road fuel for those who don’t run electric cars or trucks.

30

Carryfast:
All of which is good in theory but history proves that it doesn’t work in practice. :open_mouth: :laughing:

That’s a risky point to make, especially in the light of that I took this data from the operator that operates both buses and troleybuses on daily basis for last half of the century :wink:

You’ve provided the costs of running a conventional powered bus in which the costs of the fuel alone seem outweigh the total running costs of a trolley bus :question:

yes, exactly this is what data I provided is talking about.

Which leaves the question of the levels of taxation applied to the road fuel compared to that of the electricity in view of the fact that a trolley bus wouldn’t travel as far on a gallon of diesel (or it’s equivalent in coal) burnt in a power station than a conventional bus would get on a gallon of diesel burnt in a diesel engine :question: .

But it would still be cheaper. Since my example was from Poland (simply because it’s easier for me to find it), I will continue with the same example. Below you can see the pie chart for the price of diesel in Poland at the moment.

You can see that taxes make 43,71% of its price (taxes are parts in black, red and purple, pale yellow is a real cost of purchase and the other one is cost of transporting and storage and profit of fuel companies). So if the fuel wasn’t taxed at all in Poland, the cost of one km for the Gdynia bus would be 0,46 PLN for fuel only. Now I am sure that maintenance of bus costs more than 0.19 PLN per km… And if it’s anything over this, running troleybuses is cheaper ON AVERAGE.

Mind you, that buses are run on the routes that go out of town, while troleybuses are used mostly for city routes, with frequent stops and starts where the buses use most of fuel (and unlike troleybuses they do not recover energy from braking) therefore I would guess that on city routes, the costs of fuel needed to run buses with untaxed fuel will be higher than 0,46 PLN per km, let say it would be about 0.60 (if you thintk it’s too much, look at fuel consumption of your truck next time you start driving from under the red light). And then remember that it’s only fuel cost, while 0.65 number for troleybuses includes also costs of maintenance. And then remember that troleybuses last for longer (you can run them for 25% to 40% longer).

So I am afraid that I have to disapoint you: even without the taxes, the troleybuses will be cheaper in town centres than buses.

31

Carryfast: this is something for you since you like conspiracy theories: a anti-tram conspiracy:

I saw that documentary one day and it’s interesting.

Here somerthing else on that subject:

I wonder if it’s the same one…

32

orys:

Carryfast:
All of which is good in theory but history proves that it doesn’t work in practice. :open_mouth: :laughing:

That’s a risky point to make, especially in the light of that I took this data from the operator that operates both buses and troleybuses on daily basis for last half of the century :wink:

You’ve provided the costs of running a conventional powered bus in which the costs of the fuel alone seem outweigh the total running costs of a trolley bus :question:

yes, exactly this is what data I provided is talking about.

Which leaves the question of the levels of taxation applied to the road fuel compared to that of the electricity in view of the fact that a trolley bus wouldn’t travel as far on a gallon of diesel (or it’s equivalent in coal) burnt in a power station than a conventional bus would get on a gallon of diesel burnt in a diesel engine :question: .

But it would still be cheaper. Since my example was from Poland (simply because it’s easier for me to find it), I will continue with the same example. Below you can see the pie chart for the price of diesel in Poland at the moment.

You can see that taxes make 43,71% of its price (taxes are parts in black, red and purple, pale yellow is a real cost of purchase and the other one is cost of transporting and storage and profit of fuel companies). So if the fuel wasn’t taxed at all in Poland, the cost of one km for the Gdynia bus would be 0,46 PLN for fuel only. Now I am sure that maintenance of bus costs more than 0.19 PLN per km… And if it’s anything over this, running troleybuses is cheaper ON AVERAGE.

Mind you, that buses are run on the routes that go out of town, while troleybuses are used mostly for city routes, with frequent stops and starts where the buses use most of fuel (and unlike troleybuses they do not recover energy from braking) therefore I would guess that on city routes, the costs of fuel needed to run buses with untaxed fuel will be higher than 0,46 PLN per km, let say it would be about 0.60 (if you thintk it’s too much, look at fuel consumption of your truck next time you start driving from under the red light). And then remember that it’s only fuel cost, while 0.65 number for troleybuses includes also costs of maintenance. And then remember that troleybuses last for longer (you can run them for 25% to 40% longer).

So I am afraid that I have to disapoint you: even without the taxes, the troleybuses will be cheaper in town centres than buses.

You can’t blame me for being sceptical because I’m only telling it according to the British experience of the things when they were in service here just as Pat Hasler said.They really were more trouble and expense than they were worth.I’m still betting that the anomaly in running costs is all down to differences in fuel costs probably with subsidies provided for the electrification infrastructure and electricity used for transport use v taxes on road fuel.There’s no way that there could possibly be such a massive difference between the experience of British operators of the things compared to other places for any other reason.

33

Curryfart, i cant even be arsed to read what youve put up

why do you feel the need to be right constantly?

34

Carryfast:
You can’t blame me for being sceptical because I’m only telling it according to the British experience of the things when they were in service here just as Pat Hasler said.They really were more trouble and expense than they were worth.I’m still betting that the anomaly in running costs is all down to differences in fuel costs probably with subsidies provided for the electrification infrastructure and electricity used for transport use v taxes on road fuel.There’s no way that there could possibly be such a massive difference between the experience of British operators of the things compared to other places for any other reason.

Hm, I can’t see much difference, except that Britain was using British troleybuses, and the rest of the Europe was using Czechoslovakian, Soviet, Italian, German or French and recently Polish ones (Solaris buses teamed up with Skoda that provides electric bits and they grow to be leading manufacturer in Europe just now).

So maybe it’s just British were crap? :slight_smile:

On a more serious note: as usual you did not taken other factors into consideration: watch that movies I gave you, they show you how easy it is to rid out of public transport if someone has some agenda in doing this.

35

Carryfast, you miss an extremely large point…unusually :laughing:

Electric buses are not about reduced running costs, they’re about pollution, or the lack thereof :bulb: Unfortunately you are caught in the trap that has made the world what it is today, everything is about money, money, money :open_mouth:

Power generation produces stuff that is not good to breathe in, regardless of the method used, with the exception of hydro or wind generation of course. Present restrictions on energy producing plants have made their emissions much more environmentally friendly that they used to be, so power stations are not the polluters they once were, but still, you can’t make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and I will bet my ■■■■■■■■ that fossil fuel produced electric produces less pollution than the same amount of power generated by an internal combustion engine providing power in every household and business :open_mouth:

Nuclear power, causing cancer, well yeah, if you are contaminated by radiation, but for your argumant to hold water, everyone in ■■■■■■■■ Lancashire, Merseyside and Dumfries and Galloway would be developing some form of cancer due to the proximity of whatever they call that power station up there, used to be Windscale I think. Anyway that hasn’t happened, why, because there isn’t a link :open_mouth:

I think you’ll find that there are more cases of cancer now because of advances in medicine and diagnosis of illness. Years ago people used to die of old age, now there’s no such thing, there’s always a medical reason, they’re dying for the same reason, but now medical people know what it is. It’s the same with kids, speak to people in their 70s and I’ll bet more than half of them lost a brother or sister at a young age, they’ll tell you that they were a sickly child from the day they were born, or that they were struck down at a certain age, probably some kind of cancer or birth defect that was undiagnosed back then, now we know what the causes are they get reported as such, rather than just being put down to ‘they died young’ :bulb:

36

newmercman:
Carryfast, you miss an extremely large point…unusually :laughing:

Electric buses are not about reduced running costs, they’re about pollution, or the lack thereof :bulb: Unfortunately you are caught in the trap that has made the world what it is today, everything is about money, money, money :open_mouth:

Power generation produces stuff that is not good to breathe in, regardless of the method used, with the exception of hydro or wind generation of course. Present restrictions on energy producing plants have made their emissions much more environmentally friendly that they used to be, so power stations are not the polluters they once were, but still, you can’t make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and I will bet my ■■■■■■■■ that fossil fuel produced electric produces less pollution than the same amount of power generated by an internal combustion engine providing power in every household and business :open_mouth:

Nuclear power, causing cancer, well yeah, if you are contaminated by radiation, but for your argumant to hold water, everyone in ■■■■■■■■ Lancashire, Merseyside and Dumfries and Galloway would be developing some form of cancer due to the proximity of whatever they call that power station up there, used to be Windscale I think. Anyway that hasn’t happened, why, because there isn’t a link :open_mouth:

I think you’ll find that there are more cases of cancer now because of advances in medicine and diagnosis of illness. Years ago people used to die of old age, now there’s no such thing, there’s always a medical reason, they’re dying for the same reason, but now medical people know what it is. It’s the same with kids, speak to people in their 70s and I’ll bet more than half of them lost a brother or sister at a young age, they’ll tell you that they were a sickly child from the day they were born, or that they were struck down at a certain age, probably some kind of cancer or birth defect that was undiagnosed back then, now we know what the causes are they get reported as such, rather than just being put down to ‘they died young’ :bulb:

I think the fact is you’re still going to need to burn more of that fossil fuel in a power station to provide the energy to run the same amount of vehicles assuming that the aim is,as it seems to be,large scale conversion to electric vehicles of all types.The resulting exhaust gases have to go somewhere it’s just that they’re out of sight out of mind.

But the bottom line economics are just as important to everyone who uses transport and you can bet that if we give electricity generators a monopoly on road fuel they’ll seem like ■■■■ Tirpin compared to the Arabs that’s in addition to the government putting the lost tax revenue somewhere else with a bit on top.All that and silly little toy cars and trucks too. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp: :laughing:

But there is a way of producing electricity that’s better,cleaner,and cheaper than anything else so far and why they haven’t done it beats me.All you need is an airtight vessel/s/pipe/s,measuring miles not yards attach it/them to a system of wiches and cables etc etc,counterbalance it like a lift so it doesn’t need much energy to lift it and sink it and then open it up to the sea when you’ve sunk it a mile deep and then pipe the resulting compressed air through a zb’ing great big turbine or two.Then lift it/them out of the water and repeat on an alternating basis as one surfaces another one gets sunk.Sounds like a better idea than drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico although I’ll still want some to run the Jag on with all that money saved on electric bills. :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

37

Carryfast:
But there is a way of producing electricity that’s better,cleaner,and cheaper than anything else so far and why they haven’t done it beats me.All you need is an airtight vessel/s/pipe/s,measuring miles not yards attach it/them to a system of wiches and cables etc etc,counterbalance it like a lift so it doesn’t need much energy to lift it and sink it and then open it up to the sea when you’ve sunk it a mile deep and then pipe the resulting compressed air through a zb’ing great big turbine or two.Then lift it/them out of the water and repeat on an alternating basis as one comes surfaces another one gets sunk.Sounds like a better idea than drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico although I’ll still want some to run the Jag on with all that money saved on electric bills. :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I take it your design has the winches powered by a big Detroit two stroke :question: :laughing: :laughing:

38

newmercman:

Carryfast:
But there is a way of producing electricity that’s better,cleaner,and cheaper than anything else so far and why they haven’t done it beats me.All you need is an airtight vessel/s/pipe/s,measuring miles not yards attach it/them to a system of wiches and cables etc etc,counterbalance it like a lift so it doesn’t need much energy to lift it and sink it and then open it up to the sea when you’ve sunk it a mile deep and then pipe the resulting compressed air through a zb’ing great big turbine or two.Then lift it/them out of the water and repeat on an alternating basis as one comes surfaces another one gets sunk.Sounds like a better idea than drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico although I’ll still want some to run the Jag on with all that money saved on electric bills. :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I take it your design has the winches powered by a big Detroit two stroke :question: :laughing: :laughing:

Just ask BP they’ll know what to use.But if it was me I’d be using electric motors powered by all that free electricity.:open_mouth: :smiling_imp: :laughing:

39

Tidal power is clearly the way to go,not only does the height of the tide ebb and flow in a predictable fashion but vast amounts of water travel laterally every day.Its stupid to mess with wind turbines as we are not guaranteed wind to power the useless things.The trolley buses of the 1950s were life expired after the war due to austerity conditions that prevailed at the time.

40

alamcculloch:
Tidal power is clearly the way to go,not only does the height of the tide ebb and flow in a predictable fashion but vast amounts of water travel laterally every day.Its stupid to mess with wind turbines as we are not guaranteed wind to power the useless things.The trolley buses of the 1950s were life expired after the war due to austerity conditions that prevailed at the time.

It makes sense, for sure, but since de-nationalisation, it’s all about the bottom line and the most economic methods are to use what you already have, so we’ll continue to burn fossil fuels and the stockholders will continue to make a fortune :unamused: