praying for rain

Paul Dwerryhouse posted a comment about the Prime Minister asking people to pray for rain. I don't think that Johnny is suggesting this because he's overly religious (compare his actions with the New Testament of the Bible). The fact is that the Australian government has no plans to deal with global warming, the inefficient distribution of water, and the large commercial farms that produce water inefficient crops such as rice and cotton in areas that have limited amounts of water. This means that small farmers should pray, no-one else will help them!

I wonder if the farmers will ever work out that the National party is doing absolutely nothing for them by it's alliance with the Liberal party. Maybe if farmers could actually get a political party that represents their interests then things would change.

Save Babe

There's an advertising campaign at the moment opposing cruel treatment of pigs, the web site is at http://www.savebabe.com/ . They have rented advertising space at train stations to publish the URL.

One thing that they don't mention is the health issues related to factory farming. It makes sense to concentrate on one message at a time and they are concentrating on animal cruelty. But probably more people will be concerned with the risks of disease, parasites, and anti-biotic resistant bacteria present in meat produced from the factory farms.

Also wild boar tastes better!

power saving

Adrian von Bidder made an interesting post in response to my post about Spanish wind power. He correctly points out that power sources that have seasonal variations and which may vary during the course of a day can not be used as the sole power source.

The ideal design would be to have wind power stations that are designed to have a peak power that is greater than the expected use for the country. Then when wind power is slightly below peak the entire use for the country could still be satisfied.

There are a number of power sources that can quickly ramp up, this includes hydro-electric and gas-fired power stations. Such forms of power generation could be used as backup for when wind and solar power are limited. Incidentally one thing to note about Solar power is that it is most effective during the day in summer - which is when there is the highest demand for electricity to run cooling systems. There is also an option for having the sun heat up rocks which can be used for generating electricity at night or at periods of peak demand. So eventually we could have all our energy needs supplied by solar and wind power.

If wind power was designed to exceed the demand at windy times there are a number of ways that it could be used. The first thing to do is to implement billing systems that vary the cost according to the supply. This information could be provided to customers via X10 (or a similar technology). Home appliances could take note of this information and perform power-hungry operations when it's cheap. Your freezer could cool itself to -30C when electricity is cheap and allow the temperature to rise to -5C when it's expensive. You could program your washing machine to start when electricity becomes cheap - usually a few hours delay before starting the washing is no inconvenience.

Ideally home power generation from solar and wind sources would be used. There is significant loss in the power lines that lead from power plants to the consumer, so there are efficiency benefits in generating power locally. A wind turbine for a home will give highly variable amounts of power, and the electricity use of a home also varies a lot. So batteries to store the power are required. When you have local battery storage you could use your batteries to power your home when electricity is expensive and use mains power when it's cheap. Also if it was possible to feed power back to the main grid then home battery systems could be used to help power the main grid at expensive times (if the electricity company reimburses you for putting power back in the grid then you want such reimbursement to be done at the highest rate).

Adrian also mentioned turning devices off when leaving home. It is common practice in hotels that when entering your room you will insert your key in a holder by the door which acts as a master switch for all lights and some other electrical devices (such as the TV).

This same idea could be adopted for home use, not based on key storage (although this would be an option) but instead on a switch near the front door. Push a button and all lights turn off as do human-focussed appliances such as the TV and DVD player turn off (not the VCR), etc. There could also be a night option which would turn off the TV, DVD player, and most lights. Obviously at night you want bedroom and bathroom lights to still work but many things can be turned off.

This is all possible with today's technology, small changes to usage patterns, and spending a little more money on technology. Currently you can get a basic solar power system for your house for about $10,000. That isn't much when you spend $300,000 or more buying the house!

Spanish wind power

The latest news is that Spain has wind power as it's main source of electricity. The second largest source is nuclear and the third is coal. This is due to some particularly windy weather recently, but Spain is also a world leader in both manufacture and installation of wind power systems.

Other countries should follow their lead. Wind power is very cheap once it's installed, there are minimal ongoing costs and when things go wrong the scope of the problem is very small (unlike nuclear power plants which have the potential to contaminate large areas).

Sorry no link, this news is too new to be indexed by google.

fluorescent lights and why it's worth saving resources

A common criticism of fluorescent lights is the inability to use dimmers, as mentioned in Julien Goodwin's blog.

However with some thought at the time the lights are installed this problem can be solved. The first thing to keep in mind is that an infinite number of levels of illumination (analogue scale) is not really required. In most cases two or three levels should do.

If you have two compact fluorescent lights that use 5W and 10W then you have the options of 5W, 10W, and 15W. If you have a large room to light (such as a lounge room) which needs 30W of fluorescent lighting for full illumination then you could have six 5W globes dispersed and have anything from one to six of them turned on to give different levels of illumination.

Of course if you don't plan electrical work then it's easiest to just use incandescent lights in those areas. As long as the areas that use the most light for the longest time have fluorescent lighting it shouldn't make too much difference.

In response to a post on Planete Beranger, saving energy DOES matter. Sure you saving a few KWh isn't going to make much difference on it's own, but when a million other people do the same it all adds up.

The lack of public transport in the US causes more problems for the country than just environmental damage. It hurts the economy by making it more difficult for people to get to work. It will hurt the defence forces in the (unlikely) event of an invasion (trains are the best way of moving large numbers of troops, heavy weapons, and military supplies. It also hurts the national interest in decreasing the ability to react to civil emergencies. For example the entire population of New Orleans could have been evacuated in time using a single platform of a European station. If every city had multiple stations that had a reasonable number of platforms and multiple redundant train lines then evacuating civilians and bringing in emergency equipment and workers would be very easy. In the Netherlands train lines often run on top of dikes, this means that the dikes are very strong (if they can sustain the weight of a freight train then they aren't going to be washed away by a wave) and that trains can still operate while flood waters are rising. If New Orleans is to be rebuilt to it's former glory then the Americans should consider a similar design.

Large cars are a temporary issue. As fuel prices rise people will choose smaller cars. Also hopefully people will start to realise that 4WD and SUV vehicles are actually less safe than cars and stop buying them for perceived safety.

The Chinese government doesn't worry about the same environmental issues, however they have more agressive targets for renewable energy use than most countries. It's not a matter of being nice (they aren't), but of looking out for their own self interest. It's a pity that the governments of the US, Australia, and EU countries have not yet done the same - but it will happen eventually.

As for supermarkets using open fridges, if the vent the heat outside the building then it will be just part of the building air-conditioning system. Every adult dissipates about 100W of heat when at rest, when shopping it would be more than 100W. Get 100 people in a supermarket (not the peak business time) and 10KW would have to be removed by the A/C system without counting heat from lights (fluorescent lights dissipate about half their energy as heat, they are much more efficient than incandescent lights but much less than LEDs),
and heat from other machinery.

Finally, if you want to see changes in government policy then join your local Green party!

worse than fossil fuel?

I just read an interesting blog post from December 2005 about the environmental impact of bio-fuels. It makes some really good points that should be studied by everyone who is interested in protecting the environment.

However this doesn't mean that bio-fuels are inherently bad, just that some methods of production are bad.

The blog claims that reusing oil that had been used for frying would cover 1/380 of the fuel used for road transport in the UK. There are some technologies that have been recently invented to process farm and industrial waste into oil, some of which are already in production in the US. The volume of farm waste (and equivalent waste from restaurants) would significantly exceed the frying oil from restaurants and converting waste plastic into fuel would add even more. I'm sure that these sources of fuel from waste would add up to at least 1% of the current transport fuel use.

A better train system has the potential to halve the use of fuel for transport (or better), when living in Europe I never considered owning a car, the trains were so good and the car parking was so bad that it wasn't worth doing. A combination of less cars and the cars being driven less would significantly reduce fuel use.

Hybrid vehicles and vehicles with smaller and more efficient engines could halve the use of fuel again (or better). Diesel hybrid cars that are currently being tested use as little as 1/4 the fuel of current petrol cars. Add further technological improvements such as the six-stroke engine and we could be looking at something better than four times the current fuel economy of cars.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a combination of a good public transport infrastructure, fuel efficient vehicles, and government incentives for using both could reduce the transport use of fuel by a factor of 8. This would mean that fuel produced from restaurant, farm, and plastic waste (which I conservatively estimate at four times the volume of used frying oil) could account for more than 8% of the fuel supplies. The EU wants to have 5.75% of fuel oil to come from renewable sources, it seems to me that this is possible without importing any bio-Diesel from developing countries!

Electric cars could of course significantly decrease the use of fuel oil too. A Prius+ (Prius modified to take mains power) would be an ideal vehicle for me. I rarely make long journeys and rarely make multiple journeys in one day so I could use mains power most of the time. I estimate that with a Prius+ I would use no more than two tanks of petrol a year.

Then of course there's the issue of market protection. It seems that every first-world country has a farming lobby that convinces the government to pay them to produce more crops than they can sell at market rate. Instead of subsidising food that is sold to other countries such government money could go towards subsidising development of bio-fuels. The US subsidy of corn production is a classic example of this, corn syrup can be easily fermented and distilled to make fuel - much better than eating the nasty stuff!

things to do for the environment

I got the idea for this from Ben Hutchings.

A. Copy the list below to your own journal and

Bold the actions you are already taking
Underline the actions you plan to start taking
Italicize the actions that don't apply to you

B. Add one (or more) suggested action(s) of your own

C. Leave a comment here, so that she can track the meme to your journal, and copy your suggested action(s) back to my master list.

1. Replace standard incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs
2. Choose energy efficient appliances - I'm documenting the power consumption of my computers
3. Wash clothes in cold(er) water - Colder than what? I suspect this is based on American machines that are controlled by mixer valves rather than using a thermostat.
4. Turn the thermostat of your hot water tank down to 50°C (125°F) - this is a good safety measure anyway
5. Install a programmable thermostat (or turn the heat down over night and when you're out of the house)
6. Register with the [Canadian Marketing Association's] Do Not Contact Service to reduce the amount of junk mail delivered to your house. - Substitute MPS.
7. Eat less meat (particularly feedlot beef) - For practical purposes I'm vegetarian, with occasional exceptions.
8. Walk, bike, carpool or take public transit as often as possible - I'm writing this on the tram
9. Make sure you know what can be recycled in your area, and try to recycle as much household waste as possible
10. Compost using an outdoor compost bin or an indoor vermicomposter
11. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
12. Buy local, organic or fair trade food where possible
13. Reduce air travel - pity that long-distance trains suck in Australia
14. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
15. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible - don't own a clothes dryer, hanging up clothes inside near a heater works on cold days
16. Plant a tree - pity my trees are dying because of the drought / climate change
17. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
18. Keep your car tuned up and your tires inflated to their optimal pressure - also minimise driving. I drive about 5000Km per year.
19. Use biodegradable dishwashing liquid, laundry soap powder, etc.
    
20. Drink tap water (filtered if necessary) rather than buying bottled water - remember the Benzene incident...
21. Turn the tap off while brushing your teeth
22. Unplug seldom-used appliances and chargers for phones, cameras, etc., when you're not using them - the power use is small so I only do this for rarely used chargers.
23. Plug air leeks and drafts around doors and windows with weatherstripping
24. Switch from disposable to reusable products: food and beverage containers, cups, plates, writing pens, razors, diapers, towels, shopping bags, etc - I've done this for most things, could improve though.
25. Consider garage sales, Freecycle, eBay, or borrowing from friends/family before buying a new tool or appliance - second-hand and refurbished computers are so powerful and so cheap that you don't need to care about the environment to do this.
26. Reuse bathwater, maybe to flush the loo, water the garden, etc.
27. Make sure your roof is well-insulated. - I think it is, but as tenants it's not really our choice.
28. Always wear a jumper/sweater and socks indoors unless it's warm enough outdoors to go without both.
29. Run your vehicle on biofuel/sustainable fuels
30. Set up a grey water barrel to use when clean water isn't necessary - grey water should never be stored. It contains chemicals that are used as food for bacteria.
31. Put grey water on your garden immediately without storing it.
32. Install tanks to collect rain-water from your roof for watering the garden, washing your car, etc.

hybrid Lexus is best luxury car

The Lexus GS 450 hybrid petrol/electric car has been given the award for Australia's best luxury car!

The judging for this contest rated fuel efficiency as low importance, because luxury car owners traditionally aren't very concerned about such things. The Lexus won because of it's quiet engine (can't beat an electric motor at low speed), high performance (3.5L petrol engine that outperforms mode 4L engines because of the electric motor assistance), safety, security, and other factors.

There has been an idea that hybrid cars are only for people who want to protect the environment at all costs. The result of this contest proves that idea to be false. The Lexus won by simply being a better luxury car, the features that benefit the environment also give a smoother and quieter ride and higher performance - which are factors that are very important to that market segment! Also it wasn't even a close contest, the nearest rival achieved an aggregate score of 9% less (a significant difference as there was a mere 2.5% difference in score between the 2nd place and 5th place).

This of course shouldn't be any surprise. The high torque that electric motors can provide at low speed is well known - it's the reason for Diesel-electric hybrid power systems in locomotives. It was only a matter of time before similar technology was introduced for cars for exactly the same reasons. The next development will be hybrid Diesel-electric trucks.

nuclear power in Australia

From Crikey: If a government wanted to figure out how best to defend the country, it wouldn’t hold an inquiry into the air force. It would hold an inquiry into … defence. So if a government wanted to figure out how to plan for responsible energy consumption in an age of climate change you’d assume it would hold an inquiry into energy consumption. Instead, the Australian government holds an inquiry into … nuclear energy.

The above really says it all. The Liberal government has decided that they want to get nuclear reactors regardless of what the citizens want. Surprisingly the Switkowski report was not very positive towards nuclear power. It concluded that producing 1/3 of Australia's electricity requirements would require 25 nuclear power plants, and that they would have to be built close to population centers, and mainly on the east cost. I guess that means about 8 reactors for Melbourne and about 10 for Sydney! It has been suggested that the federal government could force nuclear power on the states even if the state governments don't want it!

For those reactors to be economically viable a carbon tax is required (this means taxing all energy sources on the amount of carbon that they release into the atmosphere). The Liberal government has been opposing such a tax but now the report they commissioned recommends it.

The Victorian branch of the Liberal party seems to support such things. I have been walking past the office of Ted Baillieu (the leader of the Victorian Liberal party) on my way to work. He has a sign in his office window opposing wind power so I guess he'll be supporting nuclear power.

It's something to keep in mind at the election on Saturday. I'll be handing out how to vote cards for the Greens.

peak oil

This PDF (700K) gives a useful summary of the Peak Oil issues. It's on the Defence in the National Interest (DNI) web site, an interesting site of US conservative political information. Note that this is Conservative, not Neo-Con.

economics of nuclear power

It's interesting to note in this press release from the Australian Greens that Dr Ziggy Switkowski (head of the Prime Minister's nuclear taskforce) that nuclear power is not economically viable in Australia without a carbon tax. As the government has refused to consider such a carbon tax this seems to rule out nuclear power for Australia. I expect that other countries have similar economics.

I imagine that nuclear power would be viable for a country that lacks adequate wind for wind power, is not very sunny so solar power doesn't work, has few rivers so hydro-electric power can't be used, and which has no option of geo-thermal power. Is there such a country?

new hybrid Camry

Toyota in the US has released a hybrid Camry which seems to be the larger Prius that many people have wanted. Since it's release the Prius has been greatly desired by people who like technology and the environment. The only down-side to the Prius is that it is a small car and doesn't have as much room for baggage or passengers as you might desire.

The new Camry Hybrid has the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) that gives the Prius it's smooth ride, the keyless start (optional), DVD navigation via a large screen, six airbags, and tire pressure monitoring.

The above review states that the test car shuddered when the engine started and made odd mechanical noises. It's not indicated in the article but I suspect that the car may have been an early production test model rather than the type of car you will get if you actually buy one. The Prius I drove did not shudder or make any odd noises (in fact hardly any noise that I could hear). Maybe if I drove a Prius in a country area I would hear some noises, but in the city (which the Prius is designed for) the Prius didn't make any
engine sounds I could here. I expect that the hybrid Camry will perform as well as the Prius in this regard.

The review describes the hybrid Camry as giving 35mpg with a driving pattern that was not the most fuel efficient, that is roughly 6.7 liters per 100Km which is more than the quoted rate for some small cars. The four-door Smart cars are advertised as using 5.8L/100Km and Diesel allows even better efficiency. But if you want the space of a Camry then 7.1L/100Km is fairly good, especially considering that you could reduce that by driving more slowly. Also we have to consider that the primary aim of the Prius design (and presumably the design of the hybrid Camry) is to protect the environment by reducing the poisonous emissions, this may reduce the fuel efficiency slightly (the aim of reducing emissions is not always compatable with the aim of reducing fuel use).

There are apparently 3.785 liters to a US gallon. A US mile has 1760 yards and a yard is apparently 0.9144m, so a US mile would be 1760*0.9144 = 1609 meters or 1.609Km.

3.785*100/1.609/X

To convert MPG (the US measurement of fuel use when based on a US mile and a US gallon) to L/100KM (the Australian way of measuring fuel use) you use the above formula (where X is the MPG rating). I included this information here because I couldn't find it anywhere else.

I was going to post this before but was side-tracked by the flash issue.

Also I've included a beard picture for day 12 (yesterday).

electric cars

Here's an interesting post on the Green's site about the Indian Reva electric car and the attempts to get a permit to drive it on Australian roads.

From the Reva site it seems that the Standard model is a 750Kg two-door hatch-back car to seat four people that bears a resemblance to the most widely known Smart Car. The top speed (of something like 50 or 65Km/h) is also reminiscent of the smaller Smart cars. The Reva site indicates that the Indian government is offering a subsidy to people who purchase such vehicles to try and solve pollution problems.

In Australia we have a standard of living that is a lot higher than most people in India experience. But it doesn't have to continue like that. If the poor leadership shown by the Australian government continues and the Indian government continues doing sensible things then our positions could be reversed.

If there is a Reva in Victoria then I'd like to try driving it, even if only on private property.

Virgin - no free water and renewable energy

When returning from Ruxcon I took a Virgin Blue flight.

The Virgin web site has a FAQ with the following advice regarding DVT:
Drink plenty of water and other fluids during and after the flight, limiting alcohol, tea and coffee.

However Virgin provide no free water on the flight and charge $2 for 350ml of water! This is a strong incentive to buy caffeinated drinks and/or alcohol, after all if you are going to pay then you want something better than water!

They should provide free tap water as a basic health measure.

On the positive side there was an interesting article in the Virgin Blue magazine about alternative sources of fuel. It covered bio-Diesel (renewable and produces less toxic smoke), and producing Diesel from waste plastic (saves space in land-fill as well as providing fuel). It wasn't as technically detailled as I would like and it didn't mention some of the methods being developed for producing Diesel fuel from algae or the work on using bio-fuel for jet aircraft (which would be appropriate for an airline magazine).

But it's a good start, hopefully some travellers will learn that there are environmental problems and ways that we can fix them.

IT companies and toxic waste

Greenpeace has an interesting article about how IT companies rank in toxic waste problems.

Dell rates quite well, I feel happier about my recent purchase of a large Dell TFT monitor now. HP does reasonably well, that's fortunate as the Green party in Victoria has recently purchased a HP server. But next time we discuss such things I will suggest that more consideration be given to Dell servers because of this issue.

Lenovo does really badly, I'm surprised because I would have expected IBM to do reasonably well and I didn't think that Lenovo would make significant changes. From now on I will refrain from purchasing Lenovo products. I will still purchase second-hand IBM products, but nothing under the Lenovo brand until they clean up their act.

Also it's worth noting that computers manufactured with toxic chemicals will outgas some of the chemicals into the local environment (IE your server room, bedroom, or wherever else you have computers). Avoiding the computers manufactured with toxic chemicals is not only good for the environment, but also good for your health!

more on clean energy

One new technology for saving fuel in cars is the 6 stroke engine. This is an engine that has two power strokes for every intake of fuel. The first power stroke is from the fuel burning, the second is from water being injected into the cylinder and boiling rapidly using steam for power. A significant amount of the weight of a car or truck engine is the cooling system. With water being injected into the cylinder after every burn the engine will require no other cooling, this can mean a weight reduction of up to 500KG for a truck engine! It is claimed that this technique can "improve a typical engine’s fuel consumption by 40 percent". Note that this technique could be combined with the technology in a Prius for even greater efficiency.

Simon Richter wrote an interesting response to my blog about clean energy. I'm guessing that the part of Germany he's from is similar in some ways to Amsterdam (where I used to live).

In Amsterdam tiny cars are used a lot more than they have been in most places. There is the Smart Car but there is also a tiny car that can only seat one person (I'll update this entry with a link if someone provides me one). The tiny car appears to weigh ~200Kg, has a maximum speed of 30Km/h, and is narrow enough to fit in bike lanes. Such cars will take little petrol and can be used for shopping. The short-distance car idea is being used by many people already in northern Europe.

Simon suggests having a standard baggage container that fits in all cars. I don't think that would work as there are many different design factors (parking space, cargo capacity, and aerodynamics) which force designers to choose different shapes.

I think that a better idea would be a standard baggage trailer that could be towed by any small car. It should not be difficult to design a trailer that can be safely towed at 30KM/h behind a tiny car. The supermarkets could rent such trailers to shoppers for a nominal fee. Then most shopping trips could use the cargo capacity of the tiny car, but when buying supplies for a party you could rent a trailer from the supermarket.

Another option is having shops deliver goods to you. I have observed an increasing number of people doing this at my local supermarket. Of course you would still need to take ice-cream home yourself and maybe milk and meat too.

Electric scooters are also a good option for travel. Unfortunately in Australia there are few good options for securing them at the moment. As an electric scooter is light enough to be carried it needs to be chained to something secure. In the Netherlands this wouldn't be a problem as the bicycle infrastructure includes plenty of bike racks to which you can chain your bike, scooter, etc. Of course the Netherlands is entirely flat so there's no need for an electric scooter. Melbourne has a lot more hills and most people aren't fit enough to ride a bike so scooters are needed to replace cars.

Regarding depersonalised cars. That would require a significant social change as currently cars are extremely personalised. One thing that I had been thinking about is the idea of sharing cars with neighbors. For example if you have an apartment building and there are a few people you trust then you could share a tiny car for going shopping. Sharing a car used for driving to work or for entertainment would not work well as the car would spend most of it's time in use (or at least parked somewhere away from home). Sharing a car that's used for small journeys would be much easier as such a vehicle would spend most of it's time at home.

In Australia most families have two cars. One is used a lot (spends maybe 70 hours a week away from home) and the other is used much less (maybe 10 hours a week). Instead of owning two cars it would be possible for families to own one car and share another.

Regarding the Pebble Bed Reactor, could the people who advocate it please read the Wikipedia article. The limiting factor is not thermal expansion (solids do not expand nearly enough) but the Doppler effect (fast neutrons are not as effective at triggering fission). But in spite of that issue, let's not consider an untested new reactor design to be the savior of nuclear energy. I think that most people who read my blog have a science or engineering background and know from experience that new technologies often don't work too well in the first version. When a new CPU has a bug it's usually not a big deal. When a new OS or application has many bugs it's often expected (expecially when the OS or application comes from a monopolist). But if a new design for a nuclear reactor turns out to have a bug then it will be a more serious issue.

clean energy

There are many people claiming that nuclear power will solve all the ills of the world. However this does not seem to be possible. Firstly you have to consider the hidden costs of nuclear power such as deaths from the mining industry (ingesting uranium ore is a really bad thing) and the difficulty in disposing of radioactive waste. But rather than concentrating on the bad aspects of nuclear power (which are well documented) I will concentrate on some of the viable alternatives.

Wind power is a really good option, particularly for countries such as Australia that have a low population density and a large land area. The Chinese government is investing heavily in wind power, I think it's safe to assume that it's not because they are great environmentalists but because they simply need more energy than they can get from other sources and that they have strategic reasons for not wanting to rely on Australian coal and uranium or Arabian oil. Most energy sources have some drawbacks, but wind power has no side effects and isn't going to kill birds either (birds have evolved the ability to detect and avoid predatory birds, they can easily avoid large fixed objects such as fans from wind farms).

Two other good options are wave and tidal power. These are better than river based hydro-electricity because there is no need to create dams that remove forests. Wave and tidal power are both very predictable which is an advantage when compared to wind power which is less predictable. One solution to the unpredictability of wind power is to couple it with a river based hydro-electric system which can provide electricity when there is less wind. A hydro-electric system to compensate for days that are less windy would need a much smaller dam than one that is designed to provide the main power source.

The next issue is how to power vehicles (on air, land, and sea). Advocates of nuclear power often talk about hydrogen powered cars. However while hydrogen has a good ratio of energy to weight it is not very dense, so the energy density for volume is much less than petrol. Combining Prius technology with
hydrogen in an internal combustion engine still won't give the distance per tank of fuel as petrol does. Hydrogen with fuel cells in an all electric vehicle might allow you to drive the same distance as a non-hybrid car on petrol, but probably won't compare to the range of a hybrid Diesel vehicle.

Bio-Diesel is a good option for fuelling cars. Diesel engines give greater efficiency than Otto cycle (the most common car engine) or Atkinson cycle (as used in the Prius) engines. Not only is bio-Diesel renewable but it also produces exhaust that is less toxic than that which is produced from fossil fuels. See the VeggieVan site for more details on bio-Diesel. The toxic fossil fuels are linked to health problems in airline hostesses, AFAIK there has been no research on the impact of car exhaust on pedestrians.

One thing to note about bie-Diesel is that you can do it right now. According to a British TV documentary all you have to do is filter oil that was used for frying food (they used oil from a Mexican restaurant) and mix it with a small amount of ethanol and it's ready to use in your car. As restaurants currently have to pay to dispose of old frying oil this should be good for everyone!

Bio-Diesel could work for powering planes, there is already research in progress on this issue, but there are problems related to the viscosity of bio-Diesel at low temperatures. Maybe a blend of bio-Diesel and bio-Ethanol would work. Ethanol freezes at -114.3C and should lower the freeze temperature of bio-Diesel.

Bio-Diesel would of course work really well for ships. Supplying the amount of fuel that current ships need would be difficult. Some analysis shows that the deck area of a ship can collect enough sunlight to supply ~10% of the power needs of the ship. The Orcelle is a design for a totally clean ship that runs on solar, wind, and wave power. However with the proposed design the solar panels will not be angled effectively for collecting sunlight as they will be on sails. I think that there is a lot of potential in having a design based around sails, wave and solar power for generating electricity, and also a Diesel engine running on bio-Diesel fuel for supplying extra power when required (EG when sailing at night in calm weather). Building a ship that uses only wind, solar, and wave power would probably be significantly more expensive than the current Diesel design. Building a ship that uses 10% Diesel and 90% wind, solar, and wave power might be a lot cheaper.

There are lots of ways of producing the energy we need to maintain our current standard of living. If our government was to spend as much money researching them as it does protecting petroleum reserves then the problem would be solved.

car-pooling

I am constantly amazed at the apparent lack of interest in car-pooling when travelling between LUV meetings and the restaurant where we have dinner. After the last meeting I was one of the first five people to arrive at the restaurant and we had arrived in three separate cars. For the most luxurious travel you can have four people to a car and a standard sedan class vehicle can legally and safely carry five people. So an extra seven people could have been comfortably driven to the restaurant and an extra ten people could have been safely and legally driven to the restaurant. But instead most people were waiting in the cold at the tram stop.

Things are quite different in Europe. There was one occasion when after an LSM (Libre Software Meeting) conference in Bordeaux we got 8 people in a Mazda 323, now that's what I call car-pooling! NB This is dangerous and illegal, so I can't recommend doing it.