Archive for Climate

Mar
26

ZERO EMISSION HYBRID RAILCAR

Posted by: cliveh | Comments (0)

Ultra Light Rail – the Fast Track to Fuel Cells

Introducing Fuel Cells to the Commercial Public Transport Market

Fuel cells are now recognised as a key technology in the process of weaning the modern world from its dependence on fossil fuels and leading it into a new age of alternative energy. The principal obstacle still to be overcome is the high cost of fuel cells. In transport, for example, one kilowatt from a fuel cell costs around $3,000, compared with $30 per kilowatt for an internal combustion engine. Somehow a reduction of two orders of magnitude has to be achieved if fuel cells are to compete with alternatives in the commercial market for transport.

There are two complementary approaches to achieving this reduction. The first and most obvious is to increase the efficiency of the fuel cell in producing electricity from hydrogen. But producing electricity is not an end in itself. It is rather a means to enable us to achieve the end objective, which is to provide people with useful services such as heat, light and mobility. The cost of mobility can therefore be reduced just as much by increasing the energy efficiency of the system in which the fuel cell is used, as by increasing the efficiency of the fuel cell itself.

Ultra Light Rail is a transport system designed to eliminate the two orders of magnitude gap between the fuel cell and the internal combustion engine. The first step is to increase the efficiency of the vehicle system in which the fuel cell is used. This can be done in a number of ways but the most dramatic “step change” in energy efficiency can be achieved by using a vehicle running with steel wheels on steel rails. This immediately reduces the energy requirement by a factor of three, since the lower rolling resistance allows a tram to use only one third of the energy required by a similar sized bus.

Further cost reductions in the vehicle system can be achieved by introducing an on-board energy storage system in a hybrid electric drive train, similar, in principle, to that used in the Toyota Prius and other cars and even in some buses. This makes possible a lower rating for the prime on-board power source which is required only to run at its optimum level, in order to keep the energy storage system topped up. It also allows for the energy from braking to be recaptured and used, rather than dissipated in heat vented to the atmosphere. Still more efficiency can be introduced by integrating the electric motors into the wheels. The overall weight of the vehicle can be reduced by each of these innovations whilst the body itself can be manufactured from carbon fibre composite materials in a monocoque form. The whole process, using standard proven technology, creates a spiralling cost reduction, resulting from each innovative feature.

Using only some of these features, practical test work carried out by Sustraco Ltd, with support from a Carbon Trust grant, has shown that a 25 kilowatt fuel cell would be sufficient to power a light tram with similar capacity to the fuel cell buses tested in London under the EU’s CUTE programme. These buses have done an invaluable job in demonstrating to the public that fuel cells are no different to internal combustion engines in performance and safety. However the buses themselves are grossly inefficient in commercial terms, costing, as they do, some five times as much as a similar diesel bus and requiring 250 kilowatts fuel cell to operate them. The next logical step in commercialising the operation of fuel cell powered public transport vehicles must therefore be to integrate the fuel cell into an energy efficient tram.

The full report can be found by following this Link.

Popularity: 11% [?]

From – Klaus Illum3 February 2009

The time scales of the graphs above and below differ by a factor 1,000. The composition of the
atmosphere (H2O, NH3, N2O, CH4, O2, …..) has changed during the last hundreds of millions of
years. During the last hundred thousands of years the CO2 concentration has fluctuated at a
much lower level than previously. Climate change risk assessments should refer to the more
recent periods, not to periods millions of years ago when the atmosphere and life on Earth was
very different.

 

Fred, (Singer)

if the question concerned a particular issue of minor importance, I would’t interfere in this discussion within a field in which I have no professional qualifications.

However, this is not an issue of minor importance to mankind.

Therefore, as a citizen with some experience in reading and apprehending scientific assessments I have an obligation to take a stand in the climate discussion.

To take the position that the anthropogenic GHG emissions are of minor importance relative to natural phenomena is not merely taking an academic standpoint. It means to take on ones shoulders a heavy burden of responsibility for consequences which we will hardly live to experience ourselves.
 
In actual practice a central question is whether or not to allow the substitution of coal for declining supplies of oil and gas.
 
Regarding the CO2 concentration experiment, you say: “Nature has made the experiment for us.” referring to a graph in your paper.

Please see the note attached as my comment to that statement of yours.

I do not accept the notion of the long history of the atmosphere and the concurrent development of life on Earth as an ‘experiment’ made by nature which is comparable to the experiment of increasing the CO2 concentration by 50-100% in a climate system which has been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years or so.

Best regards

Professor Klaus Illum

Popularity: 12% [?]

Categories : CO2 levels, Climate
Comments (12)

This paper looks at various wheezes for interfering with global warming – apparently bio-char might be the a good bet, seeding the oceans with iron filings is likely a waste of time.
T. M. Lenton1,2 and N. E. Vaughan1,2
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 9, 1–50, 2009
www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/1/2009/
© Author(s) 2009. Read More→

Popularity: 7% [?]

Comments (0)

According the Independent newspaper – Steve Connor, Science Editor and Chris Green.


Friday, 2 January 2009 “An emergency “Plan B” using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists” carried out by The Independent. This is due to the collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. 

A significant proportion would now support research into such measures as seeding the oceans with iron filings to promote algae growth, seeding the upper atmosphere with sulphate particles to mimic the cooling effect noticed when large volcanoes such as Krakatoa exploded (still detectable in the early 20th Century), the location in fixed orbit of millions of solar mirrors, and the Salter scheme for spraying sea water in the air using thousands of radio controlled, sailing ships, to create fog which increases the earths albedo and on shore precipitation.

Just over half of the 80 international specialists in climate science who took part in the Independent survey think that the situation is now so dire that we need to start seriously considering these kind of geo engineering or “terra forming” approaches.

Its a shame there was no mention of the Desert Rose concept,  and the Seawater Greenhouse concept

Most of the comments were sneeringly dismissive of the problem of global warming regarding it as a fantasy.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Comments (0)

According to the Daily Telegraph, Dec 21, The British Wind Energy Association, (BWEA ) the wind farm industry lobby group, has been “forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed”. This is because it used a carbon emission figure for coal fired power stations, rather than an average figure. This follows a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority.

This is arguably a perverse interpretation of the facts and / or an admission that the emissions trading scheme is not or will not work.  If the emissions trading scheme is working, then the whole rationale is to force off the system the highest carbon emitter which will be old coal – 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated which is the carbon emissions figure the BWEA   was using, whereas now it has been forced to use the average figure of 430 g/kWh.

This inconsistency has previously been pointed out by William Orchard of Orchard Partners, who points out the same flawed logic in Government calculations.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Comments (0)