Climate Change

[Gardian]

There was a piece on this morning's 'Today' programme about some study that has been done by some Oxford-based group.  The gist of it was that if the number of flights wasn't reduced by 2050, it would be by far the greatest pollutant and Armageddon would be here.

This woman went on to say that the majority of low cost flights were taken by people in the 3 highest socio-economic groups, whatever relevance that had or what it was supposed to signify.

Now before I get leapt on by those who feel strongly about climate change, let me say that I feel equally strongly about it and have for over 10 years since I first saw a tv programme on the subject. Something has to be done for the next generation's sake, let alone those that follow.

But to have this 'barking woman' ramble on and suggesting that Stelios and O'Leary are the cause of the climate change issue, made me incandescent.

Anybody else hear it?  

[Will]

I think the point is that aircraft contribute a lot to the overall emissions picture - although if you equate it to miles travelled rather than just people/payload carried they compare rather more favourably with road and rail transport. So there is pressure from bodies like that represented to reduce the number of flights. The cheap flights phenomenon has been responsible for much of the growth in air travel, so the budget carriers are an easy target, particularly if people like second home owners, who are perceived to be wealthy, can be blamed (something which Ryanair has used itself in the past). 

In areas like the Baltic it has been ships that get focussed for emissions; another easy target. We have all seen the clouds of black smoke when the main engines are fired up on a ferry, but this consists almost entirely of hydrocarbon particulates and although this can look unpleasant (and is carcinogenic, if inhaled to excess) it is the nitrogen oxides that contribute to global warming, and these are limited by international regulations - tighter regulations governing the amount of sulphur in marine heavy fuel oils are coming in as well. Thankfully sea transport, which is particularly fuel-efficient and comparatively clean - does not seem to be targeted, at the moment. Though ship operators having to buy more expensive, low sulphur content, fuel oil is already having an impact on transport costs and hence ferry fares.

Power generation is another area where there is a lot of hype. The old coal fired power stations are dirty, it is true. But many of the so-called 'greener' fuels may tick the sustainability boxes but are no better in terms of emissions. Combined heat and power plants are a way of cutting overall energy consumption, but when these incinerate waste they have an adverse effect on harmful emissions without expensive treatment procedures. Wind and wave power are clean, but as demonstrated in another topic on the forum are lacking in efficiency. So it comes down to nuclear, which is virtually 100% clean in global warming terms but  of course has other environmental issues.

The real emphasis on climate change needs to be focused on everybody using less energy - not just trying to shift the responsibility to those who fly.

[megans mum]

Why is the focus of climate change always focused on the Brits or Western Europeans? Does anyone out there realise that the good ole US of A is the biggest poluter on the planet and they don't care a jot !

[Bob T]

But is climate change a natural thing? Over millions of years there have been ice ages and the earth has warmed up afterwards, was that global warming? The rivers in the Dordogne area used to be over 50 feet deeper than they are now, did man do that? If the UK government wanted to sort out CO2  problems what would they do tax aircraft fuel or give away free home insulation? I think that we all know the answer to that one.

They talk about taxing 4X4s on the school run, why don't they just return to providing free school busses again? That would solve that problem.

They apply graduated road tax in the UK for cars depending on CO2, but as diesel cars produce less CO2 they slap an additional £10 on them. Deisels engine can run on biodiesel (veggie oil), and if they were to promote that they would produce next to no net CO2 emmisions. Explain that one.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Bob T"]Deisels engine can run on biodiesel (veggie oil),

and if they were to promote that they would produce next to no net CO2

emmisions. Explain that one.

[/quote]

OK - have you ever considered just how much of the World's agricultural

land would need to be planted with oil crops to satisfy the demand for

diesel oil? The anwser is pretty much all of it. It's p***ing in the

wind. Biomass for power generation? Another bright idea, but again

rather constrained by available space.

As things stand, in a sane World goods and people would move by train

or boat, power would be nuclear and every house would be smothered in

solar panels & insulated to the nth degree, because the alternative

appears to be climate disaster. But people alive today will be dead

before that happens, they like driving and flying and they don't give a

b****r.

The best legacy we can give our children is a nice, fertile hilltop. Find one, buy it and fortify it.

[Unknown]

Chicken poo.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Dotty Trois"]Chicken poo.[/quote]

As fertiliser or fuel? It burns surprisingly well when dry, as one of my neighbours discovered to his chagrin.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Bob T"]But is climate change a natural thing? Over millions of years there have been ice ages and the earth has warmed up afterwards, was that global warming?[/quote]

Well now you have hit the nail on the head. We are currently coming out of the LIA (Little Ice Age) as scientists call it which started around 400/450 years ago this we know because of core samples taken. Nobody knows for sure if this temperature rise is natural or man-made. We only have written records that go back to the 1850's and the surface temperature of the earth has only been properly measured since 1900. Many scientists have carried out computer models on where the temperature will be in the next 100 years and their predictions vary by some 400% which proves they don't really know either.

There is loads of research in to replacements to fossil fuels. This is more to do with them being harder and more expensive to get hold of (well the raw material anyway) than C02 emissions. It’s also predicted that with the birth rate falling world wide that there will be less people populating the planet in 100 years time but their need for energy will be around double of what we use today so alternatives need to be found.

People contribute a huge amount to the gentle rise in temperature. If you look at the thermal images taken from space the centre of big towns and cities give of vast amounts of heat. This is logical if you think about our body temperature being 34 deg C (I think) and if you get a few hundred thousand living in the same place there is going to be quite a bit of heat given off. To prove this point ask an air-conditioning engineer and he/she will tell you that they have to take in to account the amount of people in and passing through a room to work out the size of the equipment needed because body heat has such a large effect. Combustion engines and air conditioning also give off large amounts of heat and add to this. By comparing large towns in different parts of the world where there are fewer cars (China, Africa etc) they can make allowances to get a more accurate idea of what’s going on.

The real issue is that nobody really knows for sure if there is or is not a problem. If you look at the card who's URL I have given at the end of this post the ambient temp now is only 0.1% higher than in was in the early 1930's yet in both the late 1970's and the early 1990's the temperature was 1 deg C below the norm. These figures of course only go back to the 1900's as I said before because there were no proper readings taken before that.

It's also interesting to note that those scientists who push the global warming argument have their research funded by interested groups and those that don't do not. You can read in to that what you want I guess.

So if you do worry about the environment then adjust your lifestyle accordingly to easy your conscience, if you don't then you may be equally as right to do so, as I said nobody really knows.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif

 

[Cassis]

Apparently your modern cow produces as much methane in one day equivalent in greenhouse gas terms to a Jumbo Jet crossing the Atlantic.  Must be true, I heard it on the radio.

[Unknown]

[quote user="Jon D"][quote user="Dotty Trois"]Chicken poo.[/quote]

As fertiliser or fuel? It burns surprisingly well when dry, as one of my neighbours discovered to his chagrin.
[/quote]

Both.

I'm not sure how, but it is possible to utilise chicken poo to power, just google chicken poo, or chicken waste and there are many sites to read.  This is one of the many I found.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13606/story.htm

 

[Bob T]

And if you have 20 chickens, you could collect the poo for 3 months, use loads of elecricity to refine it enough to put into your car and drive to the end of your drive.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Quillan"]
People contribute a huge amount to the gentle rise in temperature. If you look at the thermal images taken from space the centre of big towns and cities give of vast amounts of heat. This is logical if you think about our body temperature being 34 deg C (I think) and if you get a few hundred thousand living in the same place there is going to be quite a bit of heat given off.
[/quote]

Of course this effect of cities being warmer has nothing to do with the fact that there are loads of TV's, computers, fridges, air conditioners, cookers, kettles, cars, etc. all being run and all giving off far more heat than a human being !!

[quote user="Quillan"]
The real issue is that nobody really knows for sure if there is or is not a problem. 
[/quote]

Sea level is rising as the planet is warming.  Ask people living in coastal areas in the future e.g. London (when their houses, businesses, etc. are under water).

[quote user="Quillan"]
It's also interesting to note that those scientists who push the global warming argument have their research funded by interested groups and those that don't do not.
[/quote]
This is actually obviously true.  Research is invariably funded by organisations interested in a subject.  For example, the Medical Research Council does not often fund research into building techniques, etc..  However, if you are suggesting that only organisations with a bias to demonstrating the negative effects of man's activities on the environment (Greenpeace, WWF, etc.) then that must explain why NASA do so much research into this - as clearly the US government is one of these "scaremongering" organisations.

There is so much mis-representation going on by those who "just was to keep doing what we are doing now" that it is horrific.  Measured observable effects are happening.  These will cause the world significant problems.  Why do some just take the attitude "you cannot prove 100% ..." ?

Ian

[andyh4]

[quote user="Deimos"]

[quote user="Quillan"]
The real issue is that nobody really knows for sure if there is or is not a problem. 
[/quote]

Sea level is rising as the planet is warming.  Ask people living in coastal areas in the future e.g. London (when their houses, businesses, etc. are under water).

Ian

[/quote]

 

Ian I don't see the issue in quite the same way as you.   When scisntists or the media speak of global warming they do not understand it to mean is the world getting warmer, but is man and his influemces responsible for making it warmer.

Temperatures are rising - there seems to be a wealth of short term data to support that. 

Sea levels are also rising - again the evidence is there.

But the key question is, is this all due to man or is it due to natural cycles?  and that is the 64k$ question.  Because if it is largely natural cycles then walking instead of driving or not using Ryanair is going to be P***ing in the wind.

 

Just 2 obseravtions on my side regards the debate of natural versus manmade.

Greenland was so called by the Vikings for a reason when they discovered it 1200years ago or so.

Otzi - the iceman found on Austrian/Italian border, crossing the high Alps 5000years ago, died and was buried in snow.  He was preserved like that until recently when the ice melted.

Both these anecdotal incidents suggest that these bits of the world at least are/have been much colder in recent times than they were 1200 or 5000 years ago respectively.

 

For me at the moment "Global warming" is case not proven

[Unknown]

If the planet is warming up, then why has it snowed here in the Deux sevres the past 2 winters, but according to my neighbours who have lived here all their lives, not snowed for 25 years before that.

It just doesn't make sense.

I believe that generally we waste far more than just energy.  A lot of it is educating people to be more enviromentally friendly, think about how much food gets thrown away if its a minute past its sell by date, the apples that get tossed in the bin because they have a bruise or are a little shrivelled.  Kids drawings that have been kicking around their bedrooms for months and then get thrown away.

I know I've changed the subject slightly, but these are also things to consider.

 

[Deimos]

[quote user="Dotty Trois"]
If the planet is warming up, then why has it snowed here in the Deux sevres the past 2 winters, but according to my neighbours who have lived here all their lives, not snowed for 25 years before that.
[/quote]
Global Warming does not just result in everywhere getting warmer.  It changes climate patterns.  One classic example is that the UK will become significantly colder.  As the northern ice caps melt, so the fresh water run-off will slow and stop the conveyor.  This stop warm water arriving round the UK from the Caribbean, resulting in colder sea temperatures and thus a colder climate.  It will in fact bring the UK more in line with the climate it should experience for its latitude.  There are loads of examples of expected and observed changes.  The slowing of the Gulf stream/North Atlantic drift has already been measured.

[quote user="andyh4"]
But the key question is, is this all due to man or is it due to natural cycles?  and that is the 64k$ question.  Because if it is largely natural cycles then walking instead of driving or not using Ryanair is going to be P***ing in the wind.
[/quote]
With regard to proven causes of Global Warming, the causes are not as relevant as the solution.  Whatever the (natural or man made), there is scientific evidence indicating that the activities of man are contributing to the effect (to what degree would be the subject of much debate).  Release of large quantities of "Greenhouse Gasses" (e.g. CO2, methane, etc.) would be expected to raise the temperature.  Whether the observed effects are all made made or just contributed to by man's activities is of limited interest.  Either way, by limiting emissions of the Greenhouse gasses we can either stop or slow the effects of Global Warming.  If it is largely natural then slowing its effects will give us more time to adapt and develop technologies to help us survive the new climates.  Global warming effects start slowly and accelerate.  As the surface area of white ice decreases, so the light and heat reflected back into space decreases and so things warm further.  As sea temperatures rise, so frozen greenhouse gasses start to be released into the atmosphere thus further accelerating the warming (frozen gas release is something that is now starting to be observed).  Its a sort of positive feedback.

If global warming has the effect that is generally expected, the earth will become a very different place - a very negative change from the perspective of the human race.  So why are we not doing much about it.  Because people are not prepared to rive a smaller more economical car.  Because people are too lazy to walk to the local shop and drive instead.  Because it is so important for people to spend a couple of weeks a year in a foreign country.  Everything does not have to stop - people have to start to make small changes to their lifestyle.  Give up the pleasures of driving a massive 4 wheel drive and use the car to get from A to B, etc.

[quote user="Dotty Trois"]
I believe that generally we waste far more than just energy.  A lot of it is educating people to be more enviromentally friendly, think about how much food gets thrown away if its a minute past its sell by date, the apples that get tossed in the bin because they have a bruise or are a little shrivelled.  Kids drawings that have been kicking around their bedrooms for months and then get thrown away.
[/quote]

Absolutely.  Its actually very easy for people to do.  Just selfishness and laziness.  Arguments about "not proven" just encourage people not to bother.

Ian

 

[Quillan]

All these things are based on short term data. If the human race as we know it has only been around for the last few seconds if we were to uses a 24 hour clock as a point of calculation from earths creation to today then we have only been collection verifiable, reliable data for something like .00000000000000001 of a second. We can't possibly know if what is happening is natural or not and how much infulence man has had on the changes that have happened. Of course mankind should do more like recycle, farm trees more rather than just destroy forests.

As for London being under water, well I rather think many people who watch their gardens go brown and their plants die in the summer would be rather pleased to have some water. OK I admit thats a bit of a glib comment but there are loads of examples of this sort of thing.

What I don't like are the scare tactics used and people going around saying there will be no earth left in 100 years or so which to be honest is total rubbish. The planet will change even if we stop using cars, planes and electricity its what it does, its part of its evolution but as I say yet again nobody really knows what will happen because the data is not available from the past to compare the present to see the future. Even if we did have the data the planet is not a logical thing as can been seen from what little data we do have. The mean temperature of the planets surface has been going up and down like a yoyo for the last 100 years with an average swing of about 5 deg C. Admitadly its now hotter than it has ever been since 1900 but only just and the current trend is actually downwards and not upwards if you look at the data already collected.

As I said in another post each will go to his/her own camp and argue their point, which is natural and right, they will always try to pick holes in each others data, again thats natural as well but we must be carful that we work with facts and not fiction.

What also seems obvious from what I have read is that we, humans, have not done as much research as we should and this is something we really need to do. Money should not be an object and the scientists should not be interfeered with by politics or other pressure groups which are constantly preasurising these people to give the results they want to back their theories.

[andyh4]

[quote user="Deimos"]

  Arguments about "not proven" just encourage people not to bother.

Ian

 

[/quote]

 

That Ian is because the arguement is the wrong one.  Global warming is not proven but what is very much proven is that we are consuming resources very much faster than they can be replenished - now that is the arguement to get people out of their Chelsea Tractors.  The trouble is it is neither exciting nor sexy, so lets all jump on global warming - which seems to be.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Quillan"]

What also seems obvious from what I have read

is that we, humans, have not done as much research as we should and

this is something we really need to do. Money should not be an object

and the scientists should not be interfeered with by politics or other

pressure groups which are constantly preasurising these people to give

the results they want to back their theories.

[/quote]

Which for a lot of people means doing nothing and just continuing on

this (possibly) deadly path. Rather than prevaricating it would surely

be sensible to drastically reduce emissions now and then demonstrate

whether or not they can cause dramatic climate change. If the current

models are correct then at the point where people get some "noticable"

effects (like half of Louisiana disappearing under water) the damage

will be irreversible.

Unfortunately, for many people voluntary reductions are not on the

agenda - witness the virile hunk elsewhere on this board who boasted

that his 4X4 did 14mpg. How do you reach people like that? The answer

is that you don't, so you simply have to pass laws to forbid the sale

of vehicles that cannot meet emissions targets. OK, some people might

complain that this sort of thing spoils their enjoyment, but so what?

The same goes for air travel - stop airport expansion, stop opening new

routes and start taxing jet fuel. Close off town centres to private

motor vehicles and thus make people walk or use public

transport. Sure this could be a tad inconvenient, but it is a lot less

incovenient than having your house immersed in 6m of dirty water.

If you were presented with a gun that might or might not be loaded you

would not ordinarily test it by pointing the muzzle at your head and

pulling the trigger...

EDIT: Sorry if that all sounds a bit stropy, but I find it frustrating

that some much lip service is paid to an issue that has the potential

to be very, very serious (death on a biblical scale, etc) and yet sweet

Fanny Adams is ever actually done beyond planting a few trees to offset

the effects of air travel. Mental.

[Unknown]

Are you finished ?[:)]

[Unknown]

I don't have facts and figures, but I don't think we can just hold petrol consummers liable for the alledged global warming.  Jond I do agree with you  to a point, as I think we are a lazy lot, yes make people walk instead of drive, use stairs instead of lifts.  As was mentioned before bring back school buses free or not, basically get of our  a r s e s and not be so lazy.

But  also save on other forms of energy.  I wonder how many folk sit at home in their nice centrally heated houses, surfing the internet whilst watching the tele complain about Mr petrolhead driving his 4 x 4 at 14mpg. 

We should all be responsible for how we tackle the climate change, if there is any and preserve the resorces we do have.

[Deimos]

Jon, I agree absolutely.  Trouble is there is this small group who seem to just want to provarocate about "it not being proven ..." which in practice means doing nothing by which time it will be far too late.  Positive feedback (which seems to be playing its part in the climate change) will, as you say, ensure that by the time the human race has got round to proving beyond any doubt, all those scientist's labs are under water, food production has plummeted and many of the world's population has died of starvation, etc..

I find it quite unbelievable that some people seem unprepared to act (and people don't have to do that much either).

Jon, I also agree about this farce of Carbon Offsetting.  A sales ploy to make a few rich people feel a bit less guilty about their environmental damage.

Dotty, I also agree that it is not just the 4x4 owners.  There are many ways we can all make small changes without radically impacting our lives, yet cumulatively they would have a significant impact.  However, cars are one area where people can easily make a big difference.  Trouble is that Mr 4x4 gets from A to B just as Mr Peugeot 106 - but Mr. 4x4 emits a lot more greenhouse gasses in the process - but he does demonstrate how "macho" he is to the rest of us !!  And many of these changes has side benefits as well.  I remember seeing that people consider a significant factor in child health and weight problems being lack of exercise and that no longer walking to school is a contributory factor.  So, in a simple small change (for some), actions to help slow Global Warming save money, improve child health, help avoid congestion on roads, etc.

Some changes are easier for some people than others.  Clearly people still have to get to work and for some this will mean using a car.  Business people will on occasions need to travel overseas and thus will need to fly.  I don't think people need to give up every luxury they have.  Its a lot of people making a lot of small changes.

Maybe worth reminding people that Mr. Tony Blair calls Global Warming "the greatest threat to mankind".  This man knows about threats.  It was him who brought us the Iraqi WMD's, ..... (have I just shot myself in the foot ?)

And if it turns out that Global Warming has nothing to do with mankind - then we have a healthier world, better fuel and chemical supply (oil and fossil fuels last longer), less crowded roads, etc., etc. - but we are all stuffed anyway.

Ian

[Quillan]

God lets all go cut our throats before we stave to death. Negative, negative, negative, how I would hate to live with a glass thats half empty.

The problem with environmentalists is they never put up credible reasons to make us stop doing things. The sort of things they say makes them a laughing stock amongst many people. I actually do agree with some of the comments about pollution but I am not going to listen to people who tell me what I can and cannot have. I earned my money like most other people. I spend my money as I see fit and if I want to buy a big 4X4 that does 2mpg I will. I actually got ride of mine by the way. Many people buy these things for the school run and yes it is somewhat overkill to say the least. The only off roading they have ever done is driving up the kerb. But again if they can afford it then why not? OK lets double the price of petrol/diesel or put a 30% tax on buying 4X4, no lets put a 100% tax on them. Guess what, people who can afford to buy them will still buy them and still use them to run their kids 3 miles to school. Now they can justify them even further because government stats show that you are more likely to survive an accident in a 4X4 than any other car. If you have kids that will be of interest.

Now we have somebody who says ban them completely, so now they want us to live in a system where what we do is dictated by the state and our freedom is taken away from us. Well I can see everyone voting for that one! I won’t even bring up the Iraq by the way.

We are told that fossil burning power stations are bad for the environment. OK lets have nuclear, oh no we can’t have them they are not environmentally friendly either. OK lets have wind power, ah that’s no good the noise effects the environment and they hit birds and kill them (even at sea it seems). What about wave power, kills or scares fish. Can we use candles, probably not. We can’t cook on wood because that gives of Co2. So we are now back in the dark ages. I know we can ride horses and dump the cars? For gods sake chaps get a grip, we are suppose to be going forward not backwards. Now this all may not be 100% correct but its how the environmentalists come over to normal people.

Dotty said education, exactly, that’s the primary way to go. Instead of scaring people to death and beating them with a big stick they should be offered an alternative. Rather than knock 4X4’s why not show people that they save money (people like to save money) yet get better performance from small cars. Get celebrities to drive small (even better electric or fuel cell) cars, give them the car FOC so they become a fashion icon and entice others to buy them. Give solar heating and power systems away and then give home owners a golden handshake to disconnect from the power grid. Knock money off people bills for recycling their waste instead of charging them to take it away if the don't recycle. Don’t beat them with a big stick, lead them with a carrot.

Actually what’s wrong with a 4X4 that runs on fuel cells? What’s wrong with fuel cell cars? I see one Japanese motor company who’s name escapes me is putting the first fuel cell car in to production next year. Problem is there is only one service station in the whole of the UK that sells the fuel and I suspect there is none in France. Will this turn out to be the same farce as what happened to electric cars?

When they bought in congestion charges in London there was no charge for electric cars. Ford bought over hundreds of Think cars. Nobody bought them and there were no charging points installed in London to recharge them from, I believe Greenpeace Norway bought them all (www.dontcrush.com ). I see you can buy a RAV 4 (4X4) in an electric version so is that OK to drive the kids to school in? Why not give people who buy Electric and fuel cell cars free train travel for long distance travel as a reward for buying electric and free parking in cities then double (or triple) the parking charges for the rest? Don't charge VAT or any other tax on electric cars. Give people free charges for the first say two years. I would be up for that one.

If the world is in such a bad state then by taking a calm and highly thought out approach these things can be sorted out instead of ranting and raving. I don’t think its people the environmentalists need to keep attacking it’s the governments and corporates but rather than telling them what they can’t do tell them what they can do and help them. Attacking Joe Bloggs in the street just alienates him/her and push's them in to the opposite direction.

 

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Now we have somebody who says ban them

completely, so now they want us to live in a system where what we do is

dictated by the state and our freedom is taken away from us. Well I can

see everyone voting for that one! I won’t even bring up the Iraq by the way.

[/quote]

Chris - what on Earth makes you think that we do not already live in a

system where what what we do is dictated by the state? There's these

things called "laws," you see, that already dictate our behaviour. They

are needed because, however attractive the idea of a functioning

anarchy might be, 99.99% of the population need controls on how they

behave...

It seems to me, as I am sure it does to many people, that anyone should

be free to behave in any way that they wish provided that they do not

harm others. Given that the effects of climate change could be

extremely determental to people's wellbeing it would seem quite

reasonable to legislate to control emissions of the gases that are

thought to be the cause of these changes, does it not?

Fuel cells like the "hydrogen economy" are just another smokescreen -

both require considerable original input of hydrocarbon to work.

[Patmobile]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Actually what’s wrong with a 4X4 that runs on fuel cells? What’s wrong with fuel cell cars?

[/quote]

Isn't the problem with fuel cells the fact that they need lots of hydrogen to fuel them?  And the production of hydrogen consumes loads of energy.  And that usually comes from burning something... and so on.

Nuclear is the best we've got at the moment, until someone finds a way to turn seawater into hydrogen without needing lots of power stations to do it.

Patrick

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Patmobile"][quote user="Quillan"]

Actually what’s wrong with a 4X4 that runs on fuel cells? What’s wrong with fuel cell cars?

[/quote]

Isn't

the problem with fuel cells the fact that they need lots of hydrogen to

fuel them?  And the production of hydrogen consumes loads of

energy.  And that usually comes from burning something... and so

on.

Nuclear is the best we've got at the moment, until someone

finds a way to turn seawater into hydrogen without needing lots of

power stations to do it.

Patrick

[/quote]

Sorry Pat - your post crossed with my edit. Yes - hydrogen is generally

produced via a process called steam reforming that uses natural gas as

feed and produces carbon dioxide as the other product. Sure the engines

themselves are polution free, but the overall process just amounts to

burning hydrocarbon in the same way as were it petrol or diesel. It's a

con.