| By Chris Williams
| Published Tuesday 23rd May 2006 14:31 GMT
| Find your perfect job - click here for thousands of tech vacancies.
| Scientists from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
| (EPSRC) have found that waste from confectionery production could be used
| to produce useful amounts of hydrogen for electricity generation. The
| feasibility study used sugar-rich waste from a Cadbury's factory to power
| a fuel cell.
Please not that I do not condone the excessive consumption of sugar-based
products, nor the use of 'hydrogenated vegetable oils' in any foodstuff.
I wonder how much of Cadbury's sugar supply is imported at great
environmental cost from distant countries who would have a more stable and
self-reliant future if they grew food for themselves? I don't think that
makes for a truly 'green' fuel ...
I was reading < and I became inspired,> .-----<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/23/epsrc_hydrogen_project/
<chocaholic sounds follow>
Thank you. No bad words about Cadbury. Been there, ate the bar and
If they use waste that else would go to waste it's green, and with a
bit of luck, cheep.
There is no green fuel. Hydrogen perhaps.
Anything that comes from plants to make a car move isn't green. The
plants need a-lot-of chemicals to grow. To get enough fuel from plants
to get all cars moved there would not be room for hungry man let alone
for their vehicles.
There isn't enough waste to produce enough gas to replace good old
minerals. We are working on that though.
d:J0han; Certifiable me http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup
Hydrogen isn't a 'fuel', so much as a means of storing energy: the energy
used to extract the hydrogen from water or wherever. So hydrogen is only
'green' if it is extracted, compressed, and transported, using only
'renewable resources' of some sort - or at least something like wind,
rain, tides, rivers, or geothermal energy, that is going to waste if it
I disagree about the need to have 'chemicals' to grow plants. While it is
certianly possible to boost production in the short term by using lots of
'fertiliser' and 'pesticide', in the long term that only destroys the
natural eco-systems that support life. Long term, agriculture will have
to be 'organic' just for life on the planet to continue anything like the
way we know it.
True. We use cars and airoplanes far too much at present; I can remember
when most people lived and worked and went shoping and went to school and
so on, all within walking distance, here in the UK. For most of the
world's people, that is still true. The crazy amount of travelling we in
'the west' do, is unsustainable even for us - it certainly isn't going to
be possible for everyone in Africa, South Amaerica, and Asia, to do it
Currently, Iceland is in the lead with using hydrogen in vehicles; they
use geothermal power to extract hydrogen from water. They have a /lot/ of
geothermal power oozing out under their feet, as Iceland is sitting right
on top of the 'mid Atlantic rift' where molten rock is flowing out of the
Earth's core and stretching the Atlantic ocean (and Iceland). Lots of
volcanoes and 'geysers' and hot springs. New Zealand and Japan are also
well endowed with such things.
Not yet. There is plenty of food to go round, but it isn't evenly
distributed. We might have to learn to drink less coffee and tea, and eat
less chocolate, and consume a bit less recreational cocaine and opium, and
learn to eat only locally seasonal produce.
Bio-fuel for vehicles would encourage a big increase in the growing of
oil-producing crops, such as rape (also known as canola or colza, I think)
or sunflowers. Olive oil and palm oil are a bit 'thick' for most diesel
We shall have to curtail much of our current travelling, if we are to rely
on bio-fuel only and still expect not to starve. I don't think that
fermenting sugar-rich crops to get alcohol for use as fuel will be
efficient enough to sustain very many spark-ignition engines, although
some of them could be run on methane collected from sewage-treatment and
composting works. Such schemes already exist, the methane being used to
drive electricity generators and the 'waste' heat being used for heating.
When the fossil fuels run out, the production of artificial fertilisers
will cease anyway. But nature seems to have arranged matters in such a
way that animals produce exactly the sort of food that plants most want,
and in pretty much the appropriate quantities to replace the plants that
the animals ate. We used to be very good at re-cycling all that stuff;
I'm sure we don't /have/ to wash most of it out to sea ...
Not quite sure what this discussion is doing on this newsgroup (although
we are getting v.good fuel economy out of my other half's 1.4 (petrol)
C2!)... But here's my contribution...
There is no green fuel. Period.
No engine is 100% efficient. Any energy not being converted to movement
is lost through sound and (mainly) heat. Heat is a pollutant. BTW, Just
saw a program on "Global dimming": if we use clean energy sources that
produce no chemical polution (soot, gas etc...), we will save lives (less
famines and lung disease), but at the cost of even more global warming.
Basically, we can't win.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.