Downsize cars to slash transport fuel costs
Hallelujah! At last in the Riversimple Rasa we have an article on a small, practical, efficient car rather than the pointless Chelsea tractors or vanity hot rods that usually grace the pages of PE (“A clean slate for fuel-cell cars,” PE March).
Cars such as this even with internal combustion engines could easily halve the country’s passenger car fuel consumption compared to the bloated examples we have now.
Similarly you might consider an article on the Craig Vetter motorcycle economy challenges run in the US many years ago.
To achieve 470mpg at an average speed of 60mph on public roads I think is truly impressive and more real-world relevant than the Shell mileage marathon, impressive though that is also.
More articles on small vehicles, please!
David Bridges, Milford, Derbyshire
Engine of change
Good luck to Dr Dan Merritt with his Pure Burn engine (My bright idea, PE February). He’ll need it as the motor industry is notoriously of the ‘not invented here’ type.
I just wonder if Merritt can make his combustion chamber compact enough for the high compression ratios of today.
I also wonder if a ceramic-lined combustion chamber could have made the Ricardo Comet diesel better than the modern direct-injection diesel. A much lighter piston could be used if it did not have to have that bowl in the piston.
Anyway, as with all engine ideas, get the show on the road and let’s find out if it is any good.
Jack Moore, Perth, Australia
Creativity pays off
How refreshing it was to read the article about converting the Drax coal-fired generators to run on biomass (“Miracle workers,” PE February). It was fascinating to learn about the logistical changes that were overcome by innovative solutions and shifts in mindset, to handle the fuel switch.
This is what engineers are good at – finding creative solutions to problems.
So it was most disappointing to find two letters from readers in the March issue devaluing the achievements of Drax. The home page of the IMechE website states “Our vision is to improve the world through engineering by inspiring the next generation…”. Let’s celebrate such engineering feats and entice young people to join the profession by showing that we care about the global environment.
Stephanie Merry, Southampton
Explosive potential
What nobody seems to have noticed with fuel cells is the danger of storing hydrogen in cars (“A clean slate for fuel-cell cars,” PE March).
As an ex-submariner I am well aware of the risk of hydrogen explosions. The trouble is that hydrogen doesn’t just burn very fast, like petrol, but detonates, producing shock waves just like any other bomb.
An ordinary car with a 60 litre tank holds about 43kg of petrol with a lower calorific value of 45,000kJ/kg, giving a total useful stored energy of 1,925,000kJ. If we assume a thermal efficiency of 40% for the petrol engine, and a 50% conversion efficiency for a fuel cell, then a fuel-cell car would have to store 1,460,000kJ to give equivalent performance.
A gram of TNT has an explosive power of 4.184kJ. Therefore, a recently topped-up fuel-cell car would be running around carrying an unexploded bomb equivalent to nearly 350kg of TNT, which puts into the shade anything yet used by terrorists.
I am sure that an explosion is unlikely, and might not involve the whole of the charge, but experience tells us that, if something can happen, it will, and the consequences could be devastating.
C A Hely-Hutchinson,
Independence issues
As the promotional campaigns for continuing or ending our membership of the European Union hot up, simple, incontrovertible facts seem to be in short supply. The resilience of the UK economy and what this promises for our future, in or out of the EU, is obviously a key issue and one that fuels many claims and counter-claims.
A diversified economy, soundly based and as independent from influences and pressures outside the country as is practicable in the modern world, could be seen as desirable to all parties and in all outcomes.
Engineering has many forms and is absolutely critical and central to many sectors of a national economy. This is particularly true where these sectors would contribute to a broad base and provide the counterbalance to an undue dependence on any one sector. I particularly have in mind such sectors as manufacturing, with all the technologies that go into it; physical infrastructure and its efficient operation; utilities and energy management.
My concern and the relevance to the EU debate is that, for whatever reason, too many of those sectors that I see as critical to the independence and resilience of our economy are in foreign hands, soon will be or are totally dependent upon factors external to our borders. It seems that we no longer have the native means to pursue success for our economy in the way that would enable and support real choice in the issue of our EU membership.
In summary, call it what you will, engineering is the key factor that would underpin an economy that could thrive in the wider world, independent from and without the protection of the EU. Whatever I may wish for our national future, there is little real choice short of a ‘from the ground up’ fresh start. This is something for which I feel there is neither political nor public will. So, the trap is sprung!
Brian Hark, Flintshire
Uncharted future
The width of opinions expressed in Soundbites (PE March) demonstrates that engineers are no more united in their views as to the UK’s position in the EU than any other section of the populace.
Understandably, those engineers employed in large companies with strong European ties favour remaining in the EU. Others see the EU as a drag on the inventiveness and development potential of UK industry.
Not so clear to me, a long retired engineer, is why so many demand more facts before they can reach a decision on which way to vote. The simple fact is, there are no facts.
The leave campaign cannot deliver a clear, factual, description of the situation which will face the country after exit because there can be no negotiation until after the referendum result is known. Perhaps more predictable is that turmoil in financial markets will prevail for a while, but eventually that will subside with probably little change at the end of the day.
The remain campaign can be clear on some treaty points, but cannot predict how the remaining countries within the EU will react to future British demands. The march of ‘ever closer union’ will continue with the UK powerless to influence this however harmful to its own interests.
Many will recall the discussions and veiled threats which preceded the birth of the euro. How much of that has proven to be badly mistaken? I predict the same will happen now. There is no certain or predictable outcome from the referendum result.
The best we can do is for everyone to vote according to his or her own ‘gut-feel’.
R Bullen, Chepstow, Monmouthshire
Respect within Europe
“Engineers make decisions based on empirical evidence.” Well, the evidence is that the Brexit referendum is much more about deep divisions within the Conservative party than about the EU. Sure, the EU is far from perfect and needs reform, but is it worse than the UK with our economy wildly skewed in favour of the subsidised, over-rewarded, self-centred banking and finance sector?
The evidence is that our European neighbours respect and value their professional engineers, that they understand the need for a balanced economy with a healthy manufacturing sector, and that they treat their disadvantaged citizens more humanely.
The evidence is that, taking per capita income within Europe, the UK has only one region in the top 10, London (and it is the highest), and eight in the bottom 10.
Even with its imperfections, I’ll buy the European model every time.
John Moreland, Killearn, Stirling
Let’s go it alone
It is generally forgotten that the EU was first titled the European Economic Community. This was why we joined – to benefit trade.
Over time, Germany and France considered that a union of EU countries would create a second United States, and so amendments have been created beyond the first intent, which the UK generally has opposed.
We now find a common currency and detailed common laws by which we must all abide if we continue to be a member. These laws and ever increasing union requirements are established by non-elected officers and outside of UK control. We must decide to become a loyal union member or go our own way. Half membership is only a short-term arrangement.
I have decided to leave and make our own way with trade and controls. In the short term we will have difficulties but longer term will be in control of our own needs.
Don Ives, Cambridge
End of the line
I have discovered the principle that one can manipulate public inquiries and that the Parliamentary Ombudsman condones the action! Have I exposed a serious flaw in the governance of major projects?
A vital input to railway planning is the Transport and Works Act decisions. The inspector, who is appointed by the transport secretary, holds a public inquiry. Evidence is submitted including project costs. Costs and their effect upon the benefit-to-cost ratios can, as was the case for the Croxley Rail Link, now known as the Metropolitan Line Extension, determine project scope which in this case included the closure of Watford Met Station.
The station and its full infrastructure has to remain open for the stabling of trains. The project cost given to the inspector was under £120 million with a capped contribution from the Department for Transport of £77 million, all at 2016 prices with a full cost-risk register. The cost is now £300 million, three times the figure given to the inspector. However, no one is responsible and the decision to close Watford Met can’t be reopened because the Parliamentary Ombudsman sees nothing wrong in the processes followed. Firstly, this means low costs can be given to the inspector in order to achieve a particular outcome – close Watford Met. Secondly, the Parliamentary Ombudsman condones such actions.
Surely this means any public inquiry can as a matter of routine be manipulated. Am I alone in finding this unacceptable? What happened to open and transparent governance?
What can we do to correct this wrong? HS2 look out!!
Michael Fish, Watford
Whitworth’s legacy lives on
Joseph Whitworth would be very gratified to find that his screw thread standard of 55° between thread flanks has not yet been bettered for brass plumbing fittings (Archive, PE March). Indeed, this standard has been adopted by many European countries, though naturally they refer to 1/2in BSP as R12.7.
So your new DIN standard taps will fit your old British bath pipework. Surely Whitworth couldn’t have foreseen this – or could he?
David Cormack, Dumfries
Power shortage looming
The virtues of Moltex’s molten salt reactor (News, PE March) are well made. However, it has to be borne in mind that there have been a number of prototypes that ought not to have built which cost the UK dear for little return. But all this seems a long way ahead.
What does it take to stop the Hinkley Point C project? The chief financial officer of EDF has quit his job, stating that if the company carries on with Hinkley C the cost will break the French national utility.
This says a great deal about the UK – technically. The financial press has been hammering on about this power station and its lack of ‘financial’ credibility. Without Hinkley or with, the UK has a serious power problem. Our technical experts are supine. How long can we wait for Moltex or any other small modular reactor?
William Ralph, Oxford