Remembering a much-loved student
It is now 10 years since the death of our son, Richard Pover. He began his mechanical engineering degree in 2009 at the University of Sheffield. He was passionate about engineering, loved student life and his friends.
Devastatingly, during his third year, Richard was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive form of testicular cancer. He passed away in 2013, the day he’d have left university had he completed his degree.
Since then, our family has worked with the university to create scholarships and prizes for aspiring mechanical engineering students in Richard’s name. It’s a lasting legacy to remember Richard’s love of Sheffield, the university and engineering. It’s also a chance to help disadvantaged but talented students, while raising cancer awareness. But, most importantly, it is a chance to honour and remember Richard.
We’ve raised more than £60,000. Now we’re setting our sights on reaching £100,000. We’re incredibly grateful to those who have supported us so far. If you would like to help us reach our target, please visit: justgiving.com/fundraising/rememberingrichardpover
Alternatively, if your company is interested in providing corporate match funding, please contact David Meadows.
The 10th anniversary of Richard’s death is a very sad milestone for us. But knowing that Richard’s memory will live on through the students his legacy supports gives us some comfort.
The Pover Family
Gravity rediscovered
Reading “Electrification goes large” brought a wry smile.
The rediscovery of gravity to run goods trains downhill from Western Australian mines to the coast harks back to Springwell Colliery’s 1826 locomotive-free coal delivery system on Tyneside (George Stephenson et al) and sounds like a long-overdue good idea.
The early part of the article, about converting giant dump trucks to electric, made me think we’re trying to solve the wrong problem. Before we could make such trucks, the crusher sat on rails near the rock face and a low-cost electric motor-powered thing, called a conveyor, moved crushed mineral to the railway.
Perhaps a trip down memory lane to greener times might stimulate more good ideas as everything then was done without massive power availability.
Robert Lawson, Carlisle, Cumbria
Curb the power output of cars
The fascinating and informative article on automotive-induced air pollution raises many questions, some political and some technical.
If, as Professor Frank Kelly says, “Approximately 65% of particulate pollution coming from a modern vehicle [presumably petrol or diesel powered] is not coming from the tailpipe,” surely this 65% should be the major area to attack, especially tyre and brake dust.
An obvious cause of tyre dust is the blistering acceleration figures (0-60mph) boasted about for electric vehicles (and many petrol/diesel cars). So why not limit the power/torque output of cars and light vans which can be used in urban areas where pollution is a problem?
After all, we have a national 70mph speed limit and this is reduced to 30 or even 20mph in many urban areas. And, while we are at it, we should limit the kerb weight to 1,000kg since weight relates directly to tyre, brake and road-surface wear.
But our vote-hungry politicians would be scared to grasp either of these thistles.
Having driven for years in a 1934 Austin 10 and a Citroen Dyane 4 (435cc), I know that my suggestion is perfectly practical, especially with modern technology. And if you think I need a red flag, I have lapped the Nürburgring and my driving test examiner commented that he had given me two circuits of the test route to see how fast the second lap would be.
Finally, what happens to the electrostatic particle collection system when it rains?
Bob Adams
Harmful effects of electric cars
In his response to my earlier letter on the subject of electric vehicles, John Hardaker makes a valid point.
However, the whole situation is complicated. There seems to be a general rush to adopt electric vehicles on the assumption that these are entirely “clean” in environmental terms. This is wrong and worrying.
Electric cars require quantities of “rare earth” elements for the manufacture of motors, batteries and control systems. The major source of these elements is China. The mining and extraction of these materials requires an immense amount of energy and, in China, these processes have led to, and are still causing, environmental damage on a colossal scale.
A mining operation in the US was shut down because of the environmental damage it was causing. There are mines in Africa which are mainly controlled by Chinese companies. In short, these materials are currently obtained from countries where labour is cheap and severe environmental damage is accepted.
Enough has been written on the subject of the lack of vehicle range and the lack of adequate charging stations and associated infrastructure, not to mention the time it takes to take on board an adequate charge. Batteries have a finite life. They contain toxic materials.
As yet there are no practical ways of dealing with life-expired batteries and treating or recycling the materials they contain.
Given all of the above, and the fact that over half of our electricity is generated by gas turbines, what precisely are the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of electric vehicles?
Hardaker is entirely correct in asserting that the ideal energy-storage medium would be a liquid which is stable at ambient temperature and pressure. Is it possible to generate such a carbon-neutral fuel and, if so, what efforts are being made to achieve this?
R T Holmes
Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.