Greenhouse gas emissions

Princess Nut Nuts.

It is just a vanity project to make the current incumbents look good.   It is absolutely pointless and will make absolutely no difference on a global scale, it will however cost us dearly and cause great inconvenience for no benefit whatsoever.

Are you unaware of the invention of an "electric engine" that is capable of taking on and beating an ICE's in Moto GP/Formula 1/Le Mans endurance racing?

JCB sponsored a successful diesel dragster too!

'Diesel' comes under the heading of "internal combustion"!

A 68% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, equates to removing all of the internal combustion engines from our roads within 10 years.

We're going to achieve this because no self respecting bike/car racer will want to ride/drive an ICE bike/car that gets out-handled every weekend by bikes/cars with an electric engine of identical power.

Instead of the government wasting billions of tax payer's money on a vanity project which will achieve absolutely nothing on a global scale, any transformation should develop organically and be left to market forces which have, time after time, proved to be very efficient.

Coby,

Hopefully the attached link may assist you to find the answer to your question:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928005/government-response-to-ccc-progress-report-2020.pdf

John

So basically the Government have taxed us heavily to the tune of billions so we can reduce emissions "faster than any other G7 nation"!  Wow, talk about vanity.

This is our hard earned income they are wasting.  The costs quoted in that report are only a part of the overall costs.

Two points:

(i) The report to which you refer was published in October - the announcement to which I refer wasn't made until early December based on information that didn't start to emerge until the 29th of November!

(ii) If you cannot visual in your minds eye just how simple it is to replace a piston and con-rod powered crankshaft with a similar crankshaft powered by electric motors, then you are going to find it very difficult to persuade anybody that you are electrical engineers.

in changing from pistons to electric one should consider the absolute devastating impact of mining the required raw materials.. To electrify the UK car fleet with batteries would require twice the annual world output of lithium alone. Add cobalt and the other rare earth elements and it is just not possible this way. 
From an engineering standpoint electric is far superior but we will need a better solution than lithium cells to achieve it 

Urban background NO2 pollution has reduced both in the long-term and in recent years

Do we want to build a cleaner environment for future generations?

It is estimated that there are around 40,000 excess deaths every year as a result of air pollution. Many of these are older people, but some of them are children. The effects of air pollution on children’s physical development continue throughout their life, with a cost to the NHS estimated at £20 billion. Some of you may be aware of the sad case of little Ella Kissi-Debrah from south London who died following an asthma attack. The post-mortem revealed the shocking state of her lungs. Her mother is now working to get air pollution accepted as a cause of her death and was recently granted a new inquest.

Extract from UK Parliament.  Children’s Health: Vehicle Emissions - Volume 798: debated on Tuesday 11 June 2019.

SMOG

Some may still remember the air pollution that reduced visibility in and around cities or industrial areas: SMOG.  The term "smog" was first used in the early 1900s to describe a mix of smoke and fog.  The smoke usually came from burning coal.  However, today, most of the smog we see is photochemical smog.  Photochemical smog is produced when sunlight reacts with nitrogen oxides (See Note 1) (NOx) and at least one volatile organic compound (VOC) in the atmosphere:

Nitrogen oxides is a product produced from car exhaust, coal power plants, and factory emissions.

VOCs are released from gasoline, paints, and many cleaning solvents.

When sunlight hits these chemicals, they form airborne particles and ground-level ozone—or smog.

Ozone can be either helpful or harmful.  The ozone layer high up in the atmosphere protects us from the sun’s dangerous ultraviolet radiation.  However, ground-level Ozone is a gas which is damaging to human health and can trigger inflammation of the respiratory tract, eyes, nose and throat as well as asthma attacks.  Moreover, ozone can have adverse effects on the environment through oxidative damage to vegetation including crops.

Montreal Protocol

As a former associate of the Montreal Protocol Team, the UK government supported our work to stop the production on CFC.  The production of CFC ceased in 1995.  However, HCFC production will not cease for HCFC-22 until 2020 and for HCFC-123 until 2030.

Further Background Information.  The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was first signed in 1987.  It was a landmark in environmental policy-making because it was designed on the basis of scientific evidence, to prevent rather than cure a global problem.  The Protocol controls both the production and consumption of the various ozone depleting substances.  In 1990, at the second meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in London, the 80 countries present agreed that the production and consumption of CFCs and halons should be phased out by the year 2000 in developed countries.  The London meeting also established a Multilateral Fund to provide financial assistance to developing countries to meet the cost of phase out.  The United Kingdom, along with the other members of the European Union, has implemented the Montreal Protocol through an EC Regulation, which is directly applicable in UK law.

To build a better future and cleaner environment, the Government is correct in taking the lead, once again, with a view of reducing levels of NoX by 2030.

1.  When nitrogen is released during fuel combustion it combines with oxygen atoms to create nitric oxide (NO).  This further combines with oxygen to create nitrogen dioxide (NO2).  Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide are referred to together as oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

(ii) If you cannot visual (sic) in your minds eye just how simple it is to replace a piston and con-rod powered crankshaft with a similar crankshaft powered by electric motors, then you are going to find it very difficult to persuade anybody that you are electrical engineers.

Well I do not know what you are visualising of course, but you certainly do not need a crankshaft, a straight one would be better, but a motor in each hub and eliminating all the transmission shafts bearings and losses and so on better still.
The problem is that the motor and its controls are  the really easy bit.
You need to power it, and that is where the 25 year campaign will be needed.
More chargers, more street distribution, more HV transmission, more generation, all will have to be accomodated.
Oh, and if you can develop a better battery for us as well, that would be good.
At least motorbike makers are talking about agreeing on a common swap-able battery format, that should make things easier in terms of charging speed.
Mike.

Don't forget that with current technology you are going to need to do a lot of excavation with all the damage that will do too. Portugal is high on the list right now and others will have to follow. Current lithium is not sustainable at all. I'm sure it will be OK for a few years but we will need alternatives pretty quickly. 
Hydrogen is gaining popularity but has its own issues too. I suspect we will Land in some sort of mid ground using a bit of both.

I'm just an Electrical Engineer, my Father was an electrician, his Father was a Motor Mechanic.
(Who could be better qualified for this job?)

My brief is to change the fuel we use in our engines, that's all.

Therefore:
Beast of Burden engine - You feed it, it breaths in and out, its' limbs move (add two wheels = one horse power).
Steam engine - You feed it, it breaths in and out, its' limbs move the wheels directly.
Internal Combustion engine - You feed it, it breaths in and out very fast, better power to weight ratio, cutting edge transmission systems.

"Now change the fuel powering the engine", not "now redesign the bio-mechanics of the Horse"!


And yes:
A crankshaft fed by electric motors is basically just a straight bar with a cog somewhere along its' length. The advantage of which is; it is feasible to shift the location of the electric motors to different positions along the length of the crank every time you pull the clutch in, which means you can effectively emulate the handling characteristics of a 'Flat (inline) 4' and a 'V4' ICE powered Motorbike, on the same lap!
To a bike racer, this is Utopia.

We try thinking of our battery bank in terms of a (large animal) '4 stomach energy storage/breakdown system'. Four different chemical compositions of battery, utilizing our variations in voltage and temperature across the battery bank.

We use motion of front wheel(s)/air flow/kinetic energy for charging on the move.

We kick internal combustion in the butt.

 

Using electric power is, from and engineering standpoint, far superior. Right now the source of the electricity is the real challenge.  Lithium cells are not very energy dense I'm afraid. It needs 1000kg+ of cells to produce as much energy as 100kg of petrol or 5kg of hydrogen (not precise figures but you get the idea). My current car would need 1000kg of cells for a 350 mile range (big car). Whist the technology will improve it is never going to get to parity. The cost of cells is likely to rise as the raw materials become scarce and the batteries are already more than 35% of the total cost of à battery electric vehicle 

The price of cells is currently falling.  That's why you can buy electric vehicles with longer ranges at lower prices than you used to be able to.

Before long, we may have UK battery factories using lithium from Cornwall.  Someone has realised that there's lithium in Cornish granite.  It's not a particularly high grade ore, but there's an awful lot granite in Cornwall.

I would appreciate being given more information on this 'electric engine' . The use of the motion of the front wheels and air flow for charging makes the whole thing sound like a perpetual motion machine. Charging power is surely always going to be a problem. The power transfer at a petrol pump works out at about 10 to 15MW, whereas a plug in system is maybe around one thousandth of that, so that the equivalent of filling a petrol tank takes 1000 times as long. I have been promised that my road is to be recabled  so that future demand from electric vehicle charging can be met. Not sure where the power will come from. We have burnt a lot of coal in the last couple of weeks.

The recharging does take many times longer than filling a tank - some hours instead of 30 seconds to a few minutes often the longest wait is in the queue to pay.,  - The only way to do it that fast electrically, would be battery exchange, which is not being seriously considered for anything bigger than some electric motorbikes at the moment. - though as we can use regeneration for braking, there is less energy needed on a stop-start journey, as you only drain the batteries when you are accelerating and overcoming friction and air resistance. You still need motor power of some tens of KW and you do NOT  get back any that which is  used for prime moving, just the fraction that would have gone on heating brake pads, and wasted idling in traffic jams, but that can be half of it, so is very much  a saving worth having.
Mike,

Happilyretired:
I would appreciate being given more information on this 'electric engine' . The use of the motion of the front wheels and air flow for charging makes the whole thing sound like a perpetual motion machine. Charging power is surely always going to be a problem. The power transfer at a petrol pump works out at about 10 to 15MW, whereas a plug in system is maybe around one thousandth of that, so that the equivalent of filling a petrol tank takes 1000 times as long. I have been promised that my road is to be recabled  so that future demand from electric vehicle charging can be met. Not sure where the power will come from. We have burnt a lot of coal in the last couple of weeks.

But you can't leave your car filling in the petrol station while you go to bed.

With electric cars, most of the charging would be at home, or "destination chargers".  So you're charging while doing something else.

Not sure that Nero had the right idea!
As an oldie I remember the CEGB and SSEB was heavily into majority coal /Nuclear generation. attending IET CPD talks on this topic gives an idea of how far we have moved, eg on gridwatch.co.uk, as i write this at night, 55% of  generation is from renewables, 22% Nuclear, 15% CCGT, 2% Hydro, 7% Biomass. Coal 0% and Oil 0% also 45 % of 55% renewables was Wind power. There is no such thing as a zero emissions car as mining materials, manufacturing all create emissions and I agree that batteries have their issues. However as York city are showing recharge is likely to move to overnight domestic / Park & Ride 8 hrs + and at work parking, with a variety of slow, normal and rapid charge points to cater for different requirements, Distribution companies are addressing the issues of upgrading supplies to areas without suitable capacity. The problem may be finding a petrol/diesel station in the future?  

If we should crack 'perpetual motion' I would predict a sudden increase in the suicide rate among theoretical physicists, therefore for now perhaps we should concentrate on making the battery bank last as long as we can eh?

I think I am speaking to the converted:

Electric innovation

It has been a horrible year for the aerospace industry. One of the industry's biggest customers, the airline sector, is cancelling or delaying orders as carriers cope with a collapse in air travel.

Despite that horror show, both companies say they are committed to research and development, in particular developing planes that have a much smaller impact on the environment. In September, Airbus unveiled three concept hydrogen-powered designs.

Next year should see Airbus sign an important deal with Germany, France, Spain and Italy to develop a large drone - the Medium Altitude Long Endurance unmanned aerial system.

The so-called Eurodrone is due to start flight testing in 2025.

Also in 2021, watch out for an electric aircraft from Rolls-Royce, Link to Site; called the Spirit of Innovation. The company hopes the sleek machine will break the world speed record for an electric aircraft by flying at more than 300mph.

BBC Website 22 Dec 20.

Simon Barker:

With electric cars, most of the charging would be at home, or "destination chargers".  So you're charging while doing something else.

And until that changes, it will be the preserve of house owners with garages and driveways, which are not the majority - there are miles and miles of terraced housing and plenty of places of work with inadequate provision for parking let alone overnight connections.
regards
Mike

Hi Coby  interesting question 
A long long long time ago in galaxy far far far away .......
There was a time when burning stuff was really great , really useful and embodied in pretty much most of our technology and engineering , it is arguable that the progress of mankind is actually corelated to the increased temperatures we attained by burning fuels , but thats a long story .
The 1990s level (as all countries have agreed to) is interesting , as it doesnt include the massive impact by China on global emissions , because in 1990 it was relatively low energy economy , however since 1990 the use of fossil fuels has risen , despite billions being poured into emissions reductions and in some cases rather wonk thinking , but hey wonk thinking is just a matter of friends agreeing but claiming to have no knowledge of wonkness , only 6 years ago I thought nuclear fission was the only option we had , and the wind turbine would never top 6MW output , and that turned out to be wrong didnt it .
The first lesson is perhaps this ,not everything is a greenhouse gas , water vapour could quite easily tip the whole thing into a self heating cascade ,however beacuse we have the poles this is unlikely , but even then as we are seeing other instabilities ocur which cause weather patterns to start to make all life and complex fauna have lives that are more precarious.
the second lesson is , is combustion still a good idea ??? mmm well there is a bit of battle of the wonks here , personally I dont think combustion is finished as a technology , in part because what is proposed to replace it can have problems , for example pretty much most Li On battery technology doesnt recycle well,,hence the new popular tech of old batteries being used , which isnt such a good idea because old batteries can go wrong/fail and in in quite spectacular ways that your local firebrigade will be unable to put out as its a chemical fire and self sustaining GULP, but aside from that in some examples such as power stations only combustion will give the large sorts of power outputs when its dark and no wind and given it takes a lot of energy to make Hydrogen  ,the hydrogen gas turbine isnt really the genius thing it seems to be , but some big engeering companies were all into it a while ago , nor i think is Hydrogen as a transport fuel , to put this into perspective , a diesel powered modern railway engine , when you do all the figures for green Hydrogen and its keeping , will transport more people for less CO2 than Hydrogen.
The third lesson is what if someone had invented a really cool way of doing high energy combustion ????  watch this space !!!!