A Sustainable Communities Millennium Award Study by T L de Winne, Millennium Fellow
Funded by the Millennium Commission from the National Lottery. Additional funding provided by NIE plc and the Local Government Training Group.
The views expressed in this report are those of the author, based on discussions held during his investigations with a great number of people, most of whom have suffered from beaurocracy, poor management, politics or chronic under-funding. Apart from the facts, mainly supplied by the aforementioned, it is a plea for firm leadership and the application of common sense.
June, 1999 - updated as new technology emerges
Objectives
1. To survey the results of pilot studies on the use of electric vehicles carried out in Europe under the auspices of a plethora of funding.
2. To set up a data bank of results obtained, with particular regard to what went wrong or didn't go right.
3. To identify obstructions to the use of electric vehicles and establish whether there are ways and means of overcoming them.
4. To determine the possibilities for electric vehicles in Belfast, as a means of improving the air quality in the city.
5. As a result of the conclusions reached in the above study, to investigate the sustainability of transport in Northern Ireland.
Conclusions
For those who haven't the time (or the inclination) to read through the body of the report, a synopsis of the findings is as follows -
Electric vehicle studies - dozens have been carried out, using technology which has advanced significantly, especially in the past decade. However, there are few battery-powered vehicles in regular use - why not?
There is a high level of capital expenditure required to purchase the vehicle and the batteries.
They suffer from a perceived disadvantage of short range and poor performance, both of which may be overcome - but at a cost.
There are problems of recycling the storage batteries at the end of their life, which can be short.
The high initial and replacement cost of the batteries may not be justified by the savings in running costs.
Regular re-charging is seen to be inconvenient and not off-set by low maintenance requirements. It also reduces significantly the availability of the vehicle. Hence, battery-powered cars and buses have proved to be unsuitable for widespread introduction, other than in niche positions.
Other forms of electric public transport have been surveyed, resulting in the conclusion that trolleybuses should be re-introduced to Belfast, completely replacing the Citybus diesel bus network. Surprising though this conclusion may be, the logic is irrefutable. Whether the "conservationists" would look favourably upon the re-erection of power lines in the streets of Belfast is another matter, but the compromise is between visual amenity and a cleaner air to breathe.
The investigation into forms of transport brought another factor into consideration, that of sustainability, and a further study was carried out into the use - or, as it turned out, non-use - of biodiesel as a viable and eco- friendly transport fuel for the future. See www.dewinne.freeserve.co.uk/bio.htm for the full story.
Sustainability
"Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?" (Count Oxenstierna, in a letter to his off-spring written in 1648.)
Three hundred and fifty years on, at the turn of the millennium, no realist (often dismissed as a 'cynic') could claim that progress has been made. A personal interest, sparked off by a chance visit to the Centre for Alternative Technology at Machynlleth in Wales some twenty five years ago, together with membership of the International Solar Energy Society prompted this study into the possibilities for electric vehicles being used in Belfast. So I went to the Transport Division of the Department of the Environment in the hopes of a bit of funding to get the thing off the ground -
"Yes, good idea - but that involves air quality - why don't you try Environmental Section?"
So, I approached the fresh air people -
"Hey - that sounds like a great idea - but electric vehicles have wheels - that's the responsibility of Transport Division - we daren't touch them!"
After being shunted round in ever-decreasing circles - Department of Economic Development, Industrial Research and Technology Unit, Northern Ireland Electricity (how many gigawatts a year?), Energy Savings Trust, Arena and a few other sources, I accidentally came across - and was granted - a Millenium Award.
Initially, I had a great interest in electric cars, even to the extent of investigating the possibility of manu- facturing them, here in Northern Ireland. But the deeper I went into the subject, the more disenchanted I became and the more I was led to alternatives. Being a free spirit and having carte blanche - with no axe to grind and only myself to satisfy - was a definite asset to reaching an unbiased conclusion. And I like it - it is a game where everybody wins!
The affluence of this current civilisation (there have been other varieties preceding this, but none so devastating to the environment) depends on two things - energy and the earth's mineral resources. In the past century, mankind has used up more of these than in the previous 10,000 years - resources which simply aren't there any more and which cannot be replaced. Coal and oil reserves have been decimated; nuclear energy brings problems of its own.
The "Third World" has been quite good about it and gone without. Thanks.
Much of the energy that has been used has been in getting both people and consumer products from A to B in the motor vehicle. The transportation system brings us modern practicality - journeys made necessary through the demise of the local school and corner shop, and the centralisation of places of work. Brought about, it should be noted, in the interests of "efficiency". Public transport systems, like Topsy, have grew'd and grew'd - and then been cut back by successive governments on the grounds of - wait for it - efficiency.
Having permitted the development of out-of-town shopping centres and vast dormitory conurbations, the realisation is at last dawning that we can't go on like this but lack of vision, absence of truly long-term planning (not just the next twenty five years) and poor co-ordination only go to bear out the observation made by Count Oxenstierna, 350 years ago.
The motor car has become a necessity, both practical and social. Promoted as an extension of the personality, it has also become a desirable object and the source of much revenue for the government. It is, however, an anti-social nuisance in terms of pollution, noise and energy wastage. Can the pros and cons be reconciled?
This study was carried out under the auspices of a Sustainable Communities Award. Taken literally, conclusions have been reached that, if taken on board, would mean beneficial changes to the way we live and, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, an improvement in our "quality of life". The crux of the matter is the development of indigenous and sustainable energy resources. Sustainable energy is only available from two sources - sunshine and the gravitational pull of the moon. In a nutshell, this means solar, wind and tidal energy, water power and agricultural produce. From these, the two most portable energy products suitable for transport are electricity and bio-fuels. As has been discovered, electricity is inefficient to store. Of the fuels derived from energy crops, biodiesel has the highest energy storage density and is, above all, non-polluting. I am convinced that this is the fuel of the future.
Further details from www.dewinne.freeserve.co.uk/bio.htm
FACTS OF THE MATTER
Belfast is one of Europe's most polluted cities. Each working day over two hundred thousand journeys are made in the city by internal combustion engined vehicles burning irreplaceable, fossil-derived petrol or diesel oil.
Between them, these vehicles emit over 150 tonnes of pollutants daily, including carbon monoxide (which suppresses the intake of oxygen by the blood), sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides (which form acids), unburnt hydrocarbons and solid particulates (oily soot and other carcinogenics), as well as releasing long-term stored carbon dioxide (which is helping to cause the "greenhouse effect").
Then we breathe the air containing these pollutants - but there is no government health warning on petrol or diesel pumps. Doesn't make sense, does it?
In 1939, there were 60,000 vehicles on our roads. By 1979 this had risen to 400,000 and it is currently 650,000. Only 66 of these are electric, by the way.
In 1939, infantile asthma was almost unheard of. Today, 6% of children suffer from it. Air pollution is a contributory factor. Electric vehicles are zero emission in use.
Motor vehicles typically emit 65 to 85 DbA of noise pollution when on the move - electric vehicles under 40 DbA, which is a little over the level of normal speech.
A small family car will do around 30 miles per gallon in commuter traffic. At 70p per litre, this costs about 10p per mile. A similar electric car, charged at the off-peak rate, costs about 2p per mile.
Road tax on a car is currently (1999) £100 for a small car or £155 over 1100cc - tax on an electric car is still £40.
A litre of unleaded petrol costs just 11p - then add 52.88p per litre Excise Duty, multiply by 17.5% VAT, and you pay 71.9p at the pump. On electricity, domestic users pay just 5% VAT (commercial, 17.5%, and that can be reclaimed) and there is no way to colour it red!
An internal combustion engine comprises over 2000 components. An electric motor is just like a starter motor, has one moving part and is therefore more reliable. It doesn't need oil or anti-freeze to be topped up, nor a new silencer and catalytic convertor every so often. On the other hand, the batteries in an electric vehicle will need to be replaced every three to five years.
Starting to look good for electric vehicles, isn't it? Read on.
Technological Advances in Electric Vehicles
Electrically propelled vehicles are not new to Northern Ireland, the first having been the water turbine powered electric railway running the six miles from Bushmills to Portrush. Opened in 1883, it was extended to the Giants Causeway in 1887, but dismantled in 1950 due to lack of demand.
The three mile hydro-electric railway between Newry and Bessbrook was built mainly to carry freight from the docks to a spinning mill. Opened in 1885, by 1894 it was carrying 17,000 tons of goods and 90,000 passengers a year and continued to give good service until closure in 1948.
Elsewhere in the world, in 1891 William Morrison (USA) built the first electric car, run from lead acid accumulators and, in 1889, a Mr. Michael Radcliffe-Ward introduced a battery-driven motorbus service between Victoria and Charing Cross railway stations (London).
The first track racing event ever took place at Narrangansett Park, Rhode Island (USA) on 7 September, 1896. The five mile race was won at an average speed of 24mph. (Six of the other seven competitiors were driving petrol engined cars.)
In 1899, Count Jenatzy set the World Land Speed record at 60mph in his electric car "La Jamais Contente". In 1993, a team of fifth-formers from St Richard's School, Sussex, set the World Electric Car speed record at 106.77mph with their classroom-built "Richelle", based on a derelict Fiat 850 camper-van. It is currently (1998) held by Eric Luebbin (USA), who clocked 215mph in his "Lightning Rod" electric racing car.
The Enfield 8000 Electric City Car was built on the Isle of Wight from 1973 to 1976. It was 8 inches shorter than a Mini, had a maximum speed of 37mph and would travel 40 miles on a single charge. Only 100 of these were built.
By 1980, a small car could run for about a mile on one kilowatt hour of electricity. Ten years later, this had increased to two miles per kWh. With more efficient batteries and motors, MOSFET solid state controllers and advanced aero-dynamic design, this has again doubled over the past ten years.
The German-built Arton Birdie electric sports car with NiCad batteries fitted will do 0 to 60mph in under 10 seconds, has a top speed of 112mph and will travel up to 125 miles on a single charge, as will the recently developed British AVT100 PM4.
The Daimler Benz (Mercedes) A-Class Electric Vehicle, due for production in 2000, will use a ZEBRA sodium/nickel chloride battery, as does the latest Peugeot 206 electrique, giving double the effective range over NiCd batteries.
So where are they all?
Pros and Cons of Some Electric Vehicles
Electric Trains
Normally run "off the mains", either through overhead lines or a live conductor rail. Coal and diesel-powered railway system in Northern Ireland decimated by short-sighted government policy of line closures (1966 Beeching cuts). Bushmills closed in 1950. Pros - Dedicated passenger waiting areas and railtrack, theoretically meaning higher passenger comfort (but only when waiting for a train at the station) and faster journeys. No pollution along route. Energy efficient solid wheels and high passenger density makes a very cost-effective people mover. High passenger safety level. Cons - Stations and track very costly to maintain, reflected in high fare levels. Stations not conveniently located for most passengers. High noise pollution level, both on board and along track.
Electric Tramways
Steel road tracks and overhead lines. Belfast system dismantled in favour of trolleybuses. As Glasgow, Croydon and Sheffield have discovered, installing new lines causes total traffic disruption and the virtual destruction of commercial life along the route - at a cost of over £11m per mile. Dedicated routes turn them into railways. (Belfast/Comber?) Pros - Energy efficient. No air pollution. Cons - High noise pollution level from steel wheels, though better than diesel-powered. Fixed routes. Definitely not bicycle user-friendly.
Electric Trolleybuses
Taken off the streets of Belfast in 1968. Pros - Clean, quiet and economical in spite of higher rolling resistance of tyres. Lightweight - no lump of an engine or fuel to carry. Restful ride for passengers. Zero pollution along route. Relatively cheap and easy to reinstall - considered to be Belfast's best future bet. Cons - Fixed routes, though larger battery packs overcome this. (All trolleybuses have batteries fitted). Unsightly overhead cables, but no more than existing NIE, BT and DoE mess.
Electric Buses
Run only on energy stored in batteries. Successful Oxford trials terminated by withdrawal of government subsidy. Pros - As for trolleybuses, but have to carry batteries weighing over twotonnes. Cons - Limited range, or requirement for mid-route "topping up" battery charging. Intelligent planning reduces this, as would part-route overhead cables.
Hybrid Electric Buses
Fitted with diesel engine, charger plus battery pack, which enables them to be dirty in the country or dormitory areas but clean in the inner city. Pros - Not many. Cons - Retains pollutive properties. Less cost-effective than straight diesel - hideously expensive technology and additional maintenance requirement not justified by pollution reduction. The only marginal exception to this is the Volvo ECT, which uses a bio-fuel (ethanol) to power a gas turbine which drives the generator.
Modus Operandi
In order to produce this study it was necessary to travel to various test centres and also to attend one seminar. As I found long ago, desk research is one thing, but only face-to-face contact can elicit the gut feeling of whether a project has succeeded.
My first visit was to Oxford - a city of particular architectural value - where battery-driven electric buses had been on trial for four years. The overall impression I came away with was one of profound regret at the fact that the scheme had been curtailed and not extended to widespread introduction. Fume-belching diesels remain.
From there, I attended a seminar in Sutton, entitled Driving us crazy? The Future of Transport, where I met Glenda Jackson, the then Minister for Transport in London. Mainly preaching to the converted, there were papers on the sharing of transport in rural locations, the need for cleaner (fossil diesel!) fuels and how to reduce traffic by closing roads - a topic I found fascinating in it's simplicity! There were also delegates there from Ipswich and Coventry, where electric vehicles had been in use for some years - useful contacts; useful information - all positive. A bonus was getting to drive two electric vehicles - the docile Peugeot 106 and the wheel-spinning AVT100 - the only electric vehicle made in the UK. Why?
Later in the year, when the ferry fares had come back down in cost, I motored down to La Rochelle. The only week I was able to travel coincided with the 15th World Electric Vehicle Symposium in Brussels, which meant that all the Heads of Departments I was to see were away - beneficial, because I was able to get all the information I wanted from their staff without the "puff"! Visiting the municipal offices was an eye-opener - they seem to be able to achieve an awful lot by co-operation with other departments, which we don't appear to have, here in Northern Ireland. I was also able to visit an EV factory - SEER ("The electric car which lights up the town") - and the School of Engineering, where most of the research and development has been undertaken. Their English, I am ashamed to say, far out-classed my French! The thrust behind French trials is the excess overnight electricity capacity from their nuclear reactors. For all that, despite thirteen years tests efforts in the town and a factory on the doorstep, I only saw three EVs in the four days I was there. Why?
Currently, most motor manufacturers have made electric or alternative fuel vehicles, although few are actually on the road. Endless tests and trials have been carried out with the different types of storage batteries, fuel cells have been developed in an effort to make them cost-effective and "natural" gas turbines and small internal combustion engines have been linked with electric motors and storage batteries in "hybrid" vehicles. Billions of pounds, dollars, francs and yen have been spent on development, but we are still using fossil fuels. In an effort to find out why, let's go walkabout.
History - La Rochelle has a long association with electric vehicles, stemming from the determination of one local politician to make Ville de la Rochelle a better place to live. He started off by leaning on the local traffic administrators, persuading them to phase traffic lights to ensure a steady stream of traffic, rather than stop/start. This didn't make journey times much quicker but it did cut down on both fuel consumption and frustration. (A lesson our own DoE Roads Division would do well to learn!) In 1986, M. Richard bought the first five three-wheeled Elestra electric cars for evaluation. These were successful, so he bought five Rocaboy cars. So impressed was he by these that he then bought the company and moved it to La Rochelle! This later became S.E.E.R. Spurred on by these ventures - and a sizeable grant from the French government - Peugeot and Citroen then brought out the 205 car and the C15 van respectively. Where to test them out? La Rochelle, of course. They were a disaster - and so was the Express van produced by Renault shortly after. Electric vehicles produced by mechanics - even good ones - are not destined for trouble-free lives, as these proved. Interest in EVs waned significantly.
Trials and tribulations - Nothing daunted, Peugeot and Citroen put their mistakes to good use and went ahead with the development of the Mark 2 versions. Recharging points were installed in the town and volunteers were canvassed. There was not one, needless to say! Local government officials and others were eventually persuaded to take part, and 50 vehicles were put on the road for detailed user trials in 1993, funded by the EEC, Peugeot and Citroen (now under the PSA banner), the EDF and the Ville de la Rochelle. Mid-term results were encouraging, with a satisfaction score of 9.1 out of 10. In 1997, on completion of the second phase trials, volunteers were called for for the third phase. There were over a thousand applicants!!
Phase Three - The 50 cars - 205s and AXs - are now rented out to users at £64 per month, and this includes the cost of new NiCd batteries when required. La Rochelle provides free day-time parking, and EDF top-up charge facilities are also free.
Vox Pop - Adapting to the different style of driving (gentle take-offs and planned slowing down) led to a very beneficial spin-off. All drivers reported a calming-down of their attitude towards the problem of getting from A to B. So why hadn't people bought them?
The Oxford Electric Bus Project
A joint venture between Oxfordshire County Council and Southern Electric plc (who paid for the vehicles), the project ran for four years using converted Optare 18-seater buses on a deliberately non-economic route, partly suburban and partly through the congested centre of the city. Detailed monitoring demonstrated the environmental friendliness of electric vehicles used as public transport, as well as the reduced maintenance costs and acceptability by passengers.
Fuel consumed (kWh/mile) - Diesel - 4.9. Electric - 2.2*. Saving - 55%
Pollutants (gms/mile)**
CO2 - Diesel - 1331. Electric - 1058. Saving -21%
CO - Diesel - 7.64. Electric - 0.18. Saving - 98%
NOx+SO2 - Diesel - 19.96. Electric - 11.52. Saving - 42%
Hydrocarbons - Diesel - 2.74. Electric - 0.18. Saving - 93%
Particulates - Diesel - 5.10. Electric - 0.20. Saving - 96%
(*Individual buses en route actually only used 1.8kWh of electricity per mile. The figure shown allows for operational and charging losses. **One of the inevitable arguments against the use of electric vehicles is that all they do is move the pollution out of town to the generating station. Point taken, except that emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations are washed and cleaned to an extent not possible on a motor vehicle - as these figures convincingly demonstrate.)
Compromises - The 2.9 mile route chosen was operationally not the best, but was dictated by financial constraints on the Council in that it was one that could be subsidised and therefore realistically monitored in conjunction with the private company running the bus service. This subsidy ceased with cut-backs imposed by central government.
Some pollution was caused by the buses due to the diesel fuelled passenger compartment heater - electric heaters would have reduced the range - a compromise.
Problems - The project suffered from the outset by being a consortium effort without an effective project manager. Both the buses and the batteries had to be specially made and teething problems were tackled on a committee basis, leading to delays. Even so, availability was 85% in the first two years. After this, problems were experienced with battery memory and it was some time before Oldhams supplied the correct charger unit for the type of lead acid batteries supplied.
Impact - Environmentally, the electric buses were a total success. Virtually zero air pollution in the sensitive area of Oxford inner city (where most buildings are of historic importance) was achieved and noise pollution considerably reduced.
Operationally, given the "must have it now!" development schedule, the buses gave little trouble. They proved to be easier to maintain than conventional diesel fuelled vehicles, were cleaner and caused less driver fatigue due to the absence of gears and the smoother ride. Acceleration (1m/sec/sec), top speed (48mph) and range (55 miles or 75 miles with topping-up charges) were all satisfactory.
Vox pop - The paying public found the buses highly acceptable - smoothness of ride (the driving technique of electric vehicles fitted with regenerative braking systems calls for less fierce acceleration and more gentle braking), the comfort of less chassis vibration and noise, together with lack of diesel fumes when mounting and alighting the bus were all contributory factors to their popularity.
So why were they taken off? In two words - senseless bureaucracy.
So what does our own Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland do? In the interests of "keeping abreast of research in this area", subsidises Robert Wright and Sons to build a brand new electric bus and carry out exactly the same trials in Ballymena. Sadly, I rest my case.
Then there were none......
Given the government intervention that screwed up the Oxford bus project, both in the poor route chosen and the termination, it is hardly surprising that the project fizzled out. What I was not prepared for was the situation I found in La Rochelle.
During my four day stay, I only saw three electric vehicles - one parked in a municipal slot and two in transit. Not a lot, considering thirteen years spent in tests and trials. Enquiries brought out many reasons - range (as perceived) too short; batteries too expensive; not much fun to drive - too docile; too much hassle, having to find power points and plug it in everywhere you go; past experience of poor reliability; not sold hard enough; all negative vibes.
Nothing of cheap to run, peaceful to drive, improvements to road safety and all of the other benefits of electric cars - it is evident that there are both practical and attitude problems which may not be overcome in the short term - if at all.
Significantly, battery-powered vehicles carry with them too much of a penalty in terms of cost, the low energy storage density and relatively short working life of the batteries, after which there are the problems of recycling sometimes toxic materials. This doesn't help the Belfast pollution problem, but something has to be done.
So, let's consider bringing back the trolleybuses ...............
Why Trolleybuses?
Trolleybuses were introduced to Belfast in 1938, superseding the electric trams which had been running since 1905. Quieter - much quieter! - and more comfortable, it meant removing the steel rails which had been plaguing cyclists and the ever-increasing number of motorists. They ran for 30 years until 1968, when the expiry of Belfast Corporation's lease on the Haymarket Depot expired. (Not, as some would have it, due to civil unrest and the inability of trolleybuses to reverse or divert out of trouble.)
In their last full year of operation (1967) the 59 vehicles on the road carried a total of 18,348,045 passengers and travelled 1,638,575 miles. Compared with the 457 omnibuses on the road (122,279,042 passengers) this amounted to 15% of the total traffic - effectively, a 15% reduction in public transport pollution in Belfast. The costs of running the two types of transport were not fairly compared - included in the cost of the trolleybus operation was that of maintaining the overhead lines, whilst the omnibuses had their roads kept up for them. Nevertheless, the working expense of the trolleybuses came to 65d (32p) per mile, compared with 54.6d (27p) per mile for the omnibuses. Breaking down these costs further gives a better comparison, fuel costs for the omnibuses being 2.2p per mile and power costs 2.7p per mile for the trolleybuses. Maintenance costs for the omnibus was 3.5p per mile and for the trolleybus 3.7p per mile, but a further 1p per mile was added in respect of line upkeep.
The 1967 Annual Report also includes the power consumption figures for trolleybuses (3.388 kWh per mile). This may be compared with the Oxford trials, when 2.2 kWh consumption per mile was recorded, using stored energy. This is an indication of the increased efficiency of electric vehicles over the past thirty years, but the power loss through the overhead lines and running conductors and huge battery weight have not been taken into account to provide a more accurate comparison. (The trolleybus, of course, does not have the weight of a 7 litre diesel engine and tank of fuel to carry around.) On a running cost analysis basis, therefore, there is very little reason for bringing trolleybuses back to Belfast, especially as it would mean the the up-front cost of re-installing all the power stanchions and overhead lines that were pulled out.
On the other hand, a 55% more fuel-efficient public transport system emitting 98% less carbon monoxide, 42% less nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide, 93% less hydrocarbons and 96% less carcinogenic particulates might just sway the jury! So why has the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland just approved the expenditure of nearly £16 million for new buses "designed to use environmentally friendly fuels where possible"? Am I reading this correctly? And why is it necessary to spend a further £7.5 million on places for people to wait for transport in?
The Story So Far ......
Belfast is a dirty city to live and work in and positively injurious to the health. Steps have been taken, in that the city is theoretically a Smokeless Zone, but enforcement is sadly lacking. Public transport (Citybus and Ulsterbus), with it's usual team of professional apologists to the fore, is shouting the virtues of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel fuel and how good to the environment it is - ignoring the harmful effects of the remaining carcinogenic pollutants! There is a serious case for the replacement of the whole of the Citybus diesel fleet by trolleybuses as being the most cost-effective, least polluting and quietest form of public transport.
So who should pay? The recent revelation that Translink not only owns a third of Belfast's multi-storey car parking spaces but also has a cash surplus of some £40m must bring into question the integrity of the company, especially following a series of cash injections begged from government and fare increases imposed on the public. Who allowed the company to put itself in this unusual position, and for whose benefit was it done? Regardless of the answers to these pertinent questions, it is obvious that Translink already has the resources to set up the trolleybus infra-structure. So who decides?
Public Transport - "sustainable"?
The definition of the word "sustainable" is not understood by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. This is evident from their latest publication "Moving Forward - N.I. Transport Policy Statement", where it is used to mean "we can keep things going for a wee while longer". It is tempting to analyse this simplistic and naive document in detail, having found little to inspire confidence in future plans for mass transportation, but a few select comments are called for.
Public transport is a mess. Grandiose references to "integration" will not compensate for constantly changing timetables, poor timekeeping, high fares and unrealistic fare structures, lack of comfort and bad routing. (Integration is another word not understood - this time by Translink, when an enquirer was advised that, in the absence of a bus to Crumlin, there was always the train!) £11million spent on disjointed bicycle lanes will not persuade many people to use them in the face of rainfall, speeding lorries and punctures from unswept roadways! Nothing is considered past 2020.
Some short-term suggestions -
As in La Rochelle, priority must be given to easing traffic flow by use of linked "intelligent" traffic signals and more common-sense in their application, thus reducing fuel consumption.
To reduce the number of school runs, give free bus passes to all children and employ more "lollipop" people.
To decrease off-peak car journeys and increase public transport use, give all senior citizens free bus passes.
Reduce the fare level for short journeys.
Bring back bus conductors on some routes to reduce waiting time at stops.
Road User Charging - didn't that used to be the Road Fund Licence, until high-jacked by government in the 'thirties? Don't insult our intelligence, please!
Energy Storage Density
The lead-acid accumulator was invented by Raimond-Louis-Gaston Plante in 1859, although there had been earlier attempts to produce practical electrical storage batteries. In the intervening 140 years little has been done to improve the amount of energy stored in this medium, which remains at around 30 watt hours per kilogramme (Wh/kg). However, it still remains the most cost-effective means of powering electric vehicles. It was not until the introduction of nickel cadmium (NiCd) cells that capacities exceeded the 40 Wh/kg mark. Advanced NiCd vehicle batteries now top 55 Wh/kg
Development has forged ahead over the past twenty years - sodium/sulphur, zinc/air, lithium ion (105 Wh/kg), lead/ cobalt, zinc/air, nickel metal hydride, lithium polymer (120 Wh/kg) and the 150 Wh/kg heavily insulated (they only work at 270 deg C) nickel/sodium chloride (ZEBRA) batteries have appeared but, still, all of them are totally overwhelmed by the 4600 Wh/kg of energy in methanol made by fermenting crops (ever hear of poteen?), 7100 Wh/kg in ethanol distilled from wood, or the more powerful biodiesel made from vegetable oils, producing 10400 Wh/kg.
(Update February 2000) Tel Aviv University has announced the prototype development of the Lithium/ composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) pyrite battery, which acts as a rechargeable battery at 90 - 135 deg C. The thin-film design reduces the density of the battery to store 170 Wh/kg, but with a limited lifecycle of 500 charges. As for the ZEBRA battery system, a vacuum flask design will be necessary to bring this developent to a usable state. It is also limited in use by the amount of lithium available, but is another non-toxic storage medium.
All of which, of course, begs the question - are battery powered electric vehicles the transport of the future?
Much has been made of the potential of fuel cells - one trial in progress at present in Chicago uses hydrogen as the fuel. Trouble is that, unless the gas is produced by non-fossil electrolysis, it takes more energy to produce the fuel than it stores! The storage medium for hydrogen, be it under compression or absorbed by a hydride, is also very bulky and expensive. There are other compressed gases, both "natural" and petroleum. These have deliberately been left out of the considerations due to (a) storage and/or distribution problems, (b) they are fossil fuels, or (c) they are hideously expensive to produce.
So why all the money spent on endless "research"? In the hopes of a "breakthrough"? - but the breakthrough was made in 1900, when Dr Rudolph Diesel demonstrated his new engine at the Paris Exhibition - on peanut oil!
Liquid fuels are efficient and convenient forms of stored energy, each litre of fossil diesel or petrol fuel producing over eight kilowatt hours of power. Hence, they are attractive for use in vehicles, especially now that internal combustion engines are close to 60% - how about the 94mpg diesel-powered VW Lupo? Now we are getting somewhere, but could it run on biodiesel? Tests carried out at the University of Missouri demonstrated that biodiesel is more lubricating to the engine, but that it does tend to degrade rubber seals and hoses. Most European vehicles use little rubber, anyway.
I am sorry - I don't understand - if biodiesel is so easy to make, why are we not all using it?
It surely couldn't be pressure from the big oil companies on government to maintain fossil oil usage - after all, BP are into solar energy in a big way. Or the receipt of so much money from the EU for set-aside land? Or is it the Magpie Syndrome - pick up the bright and shiny and run with it?
The thought set me off on another tack - that of sustainable transport energy.
The Case For Biofuels
1. The vegetation from which they are made grows again on the same piece of land, making them sustainable fuels.
2. Vegetation uses carbon dioxide to grow, releasing it when the fuel is burnt. This is the sustainable carbon cycle.
3. High carbon dioxide levels plus global warming are causing plants to grow faster, enabling a crop to provide a higher yield. This acts as a reservoir and reduces global warming.
4. Used in vehicles, bio-fuels do not contain sulphur, thereby reducing to nil one of the most damaging pollutants produced by fossil fuels.
5. Due to the fact that there is an oxygen molecule present in the composition of bio-fuels, carbon monoxide emission is reduced.
6. Bio-fuels do not produce carcinogenic particulates.
7. All bio-fuels are bio-degradable.
8. Energy crops can produce valuable by-products (as well as keeping the wheels of civilisation turning).
9. They can help a country - or a province - become more energy self-sufficient, thereby increasing true wealth potential.
10. Energy crops are labour-intensive, hence reducing unemployment in the agricultural sector.
11. The introduction of bio-fuels, being naturally in liquid form, would not mean the high capital equipment required for distribution of hydrogen or liquid petroleum (LPG) or "natural" (LNG) gas "clean" alternatives.
12. Use of sustainable fuels slows down depletion of finite fossil resources and so encourages national energy security.
So why aren't we using them? See www.dewinne.freeserve.co.uk/bio.htm for the full story
Further information also available on www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/
Feedback to - terry@dewinne.freeserve.co.uk