On Saturday, 13 August 2016 00:32:49 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

--

They will be installed in the basement of (groups of) houses in the future.
Energy density will not be an issue in this context.

Large central fossil fuel/nuclear electricity generation will gradually disappear.
This why the future of Hinkley point os in doubt.

Just as central heating is decentralised in large buildings these days.