Interesting little snippet I came across:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...r_shenanigans/

The truth will out :-)
Don

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:20:33 +0100
Donwill wrote:

Interesting little snippet I came across:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...r_shenanigans/

The truth will out :-)
Don

I've decided to take the petrol lump out on my Mistubishi, it's nearly
11 anyway, and replace it with a 'leccy motor and a few rechargeable
PP9s. Then I'm planning to put the petrol lump with a genny into a
trailer with a big bit of 10mm T&E to convey the output to the main
vehicle.

This way the car will be a lightweight local runabout with, oh, 30 or
so miles range, but when I have to visit the aged parents down south
(you know, the place, south of Kendal, where it says on the map: "Here
be dragons") I can take the charger with me.

This 'leccy car stuff just needs some proper brains behind it!

R.

"DA" wrote in message
roups.com...
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/...la-701863-.htm
DA wrote:
Huge wrote:

Even if there were charging stations every 50 yards, the technology is
insufficiently mature. Or, in more, er, aggressive terms, it sucks.

The only way any technology improves is through use. No use = sucky
technology.
But charging is only a part of it. Little noise, high torque, lower fuel
(energy) cost, and little to no maintenance of the electrical vehicle are
all playing role.

Basically, the entire article is about how stopping for charging slows you
down. This concept sounds like a no-brainer to me. Of course you have to
plan your route if your range is limited for one reason or another. As one
commenter pointed out, you would not cross Pacific Ocean (8 255nm shortest
trip) in an A320 (3,300 nm average range), you have to plan your route and
stop for refueling twice.

We\'ve been conditioned to expect that a car can take us 500 km away at
any moment we wished. That hasn\'t always been the case and that\'s going
away now. If for no other reason, you at least have to stop and think
about paying for all the gas that you\'ll use on the trip. Thinking a
little ahead and considering if your car has enough charge for the trip
also seems like a reasonable thing to ask of the driver.

But at lease these "refuelling" stops add little time. Refuelling an
electric car takes a long (or longer) than it did to use up the "fuel" that
you gain from each stop increasing the journey time by 200%.

tim

In message , Tim
Streater wrote

So what would you call a reasonable range, then, bearing in mind the
need to have some reserve because of that detour, or the extra part of
the trip cos you just remembered you need a widget from B&Q?

Or the temperature has just fallen to -0C and the "fully charged"
battery is only good for half the distance because you are using 1KW/h
just to keep warm inside the car.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-22, DA wrote:
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/...la-701863-.htm
DA wrote:

Donwill wrote:


Interesting little snippet I came across:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...r_shenanigans/

The truth will out :-)
Don

Which truth? That UK (and everyone else) lacks charging stations?

Even if there were charging stations every 50 yards, the technology is
insufficiently mature. Or, in more, er, aggressive terms, it sucks.


But to be fair to a new technology, steam vans and early IC cars sucked
rocks through very tiny straws when they were invented.

I expect there were plenty of people who said stuff like: "I don't have to
get up 2 hours before I need to travel to heat up my horse" and "where will
I get a load of coal or cleanish water on my way to the next distant big
town" (when there was a fine infrastructure of inns with stabling
facilities).

That not to say I'm putting my bets on battery powered cars specifically -
there are other choices, but I do see electric cars coming to maturity at
some point, and the road to there can only be achieved by going through the
evolutionary period first like most other things.

I used to think bio-diesel was a good idea until it appeared to be the case
that it displaces too much food producing land.

I am a firm believer in nuclear power which tends to imply (mostly) that
electric cars are a good thing to be developing. As to whether battery
technology will get there (at least it is a well researched area thanks to
the proliferation of portable electronics) or whether it will be hydrogen
fuel cells or even remain with IC engines but powered by alcohol from algae
farms all remains to be seen. But someone has to be trying new stuff, and
like the first "personal computer" and "mobile phone", the prototypes will
expensive and sucky.

Cheers

Tim

--
Tim Watts

Tim Streater wrote:


So what would you call a reasonable range, then, bearing in mind the
need to have some reserve because of that detour, or the extra part of
the trip cos you just remembered you need a widget from B&Q?

And what's with all the backslash-quote business in your post?


Well, the market does have some natural seggration already:

1) Mummy doing a 2-3 mile school run in the town - ideal for a tiny slow
vehicle that can be topped up in 20 minutes at the supermarket or soak
charged over the weekend from a pool of charging points.

2) The medium ranged commuter - 5-10 miles to a station, charge while parked
all day.

3) The long distance regular driver.

The only problem I can see is that 1+2 want to pull a long distance journey
once in a while - so that's two car territory, but as lots of families have
2 cars anyway, that still leaves a market.

--
Tim Watts

John Rumm wrote:

What you need is a car that runs on Rechargable DDDDDDDDD Cells. As they
get low you pull into the filling station where your set are ejected and
begin recharge, and a fully charged set are installed. In 30 hours time,
your ejected set can be rotated into the next car that pulls in.

The GM EV1 used many AA sized cells didn't it? It becomes an ownership
issue. who's to say what the charge tretention is of the exchanged set,
what if the older battery has a higher internal resistance.

Having said that with no tax and low insurance cost a EV shopping cart would
suit my wife in the summer, trouble is capital cost is higher than a cheap
petrol engined car for the 10 or so miles she does in a day.

AJH

On 22/04/2011 19:57, Tim Watts wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-22, wrote:
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/...la-701863-.htm
DA wrote:

Donwill wrote:


Interesting little snippet I came across:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...r_shenanigans/

The truth will out :-)
Don

Which truth? That UK (and everyone else) lacks charging stations?

Even if there were charging stations every 50 yards, the technology is
insufficiently mature. Or, in more, er, aggressive terms, it sucks.


But to be fair to a new technology, steam vans and early IC cars sucked
rocks through very tiny straws when they were invented.

I expect there were plenty of people who said stuff like: "I don't have to
get up 2 hours before I need to travel to heat up my horse" and "where will
I get a load of coal or cleanish water on my way to the next distant big
town" (when there was a fine infrastructure of inns with stabling
facilities).

That not to say I'm putting my bets on battery powered cars specifically -
there are other choices, but I do see electric cars coming to maturity at
some point, and the road to there can only be achieved by going through the
evolutionary period first like most other things.

I used to think bio-diesel was a good idea until it appeared to be the case
that it displaces too much food producing land.

I am a firm believer in nuclear power which tends to imply (mostly) that
electric cars are a good thing to be developing. As to whether battery
technology will get there (at least it is a well researched area thanks to
the proliferation of portable electronics) or whether it will be hydrogen
fuel cells or even remain with IC engines but powered by alcohol from algae
farms all remains to be seen. But someone has to be trying new stuff, and
like the first "personal computer" and "mobile phone", the prototypes will
expensive and sucky.

Cheers

Tim


I heard what I thought was a bright idea the other day. The problem with
solar energy sources like wind and light is that they vary a lot and so
don't always produce when the energy is needed. PV leccy is produced
during the day but needed at night and so on, and many posters have
pointed out that we do not have means of storage at sensible cost. If
there were lots of electric cars with batteries that charged reasonably
quickly, they could act as a huge reservoir of electrical energy.

Lots of scenarios present themselves. As an example I might have a home
PV array and a car. During the day the car charges when I'm not using
it. During the night, I can use some of the energy to power my home or,
if there is a surge in national demand, a modest amount of electricity
is bought from each car connected to the system, and then sold back if
needed later. Another example. I'm making more PV elec during the day
than I need. The system buys it and sells it to cars charging at work
for the trip home. The idea thrives on intelligence and variation of
generation and use. I can't see that it's beyond our technology now.

Clearly we'll continue to need a base of steady generation but to me an
idea like this looks promising.

I agree with Tim about algae. The efficiencies they are already
achieving in trials, and the fact that food-growing land is not
required, makes this a very promising bio-fuel.

Peter Scott

What you need is a car that runs on Rechargable DDDDDDDDD Cells. As they
get low you pull into the filling station where your set are ejected and
begin recharge, and a fully charged set are installed. In 30 hours time,
your ejected set can be rotated into the next car that pulls in.


What we really need is to dump the idea of batteries, and work on a more
efficient heat engine or fuel cell for the primary power.

Electrical transmission is fine as it stands but the electrical to
chemical conversion and back again is not the real long term answer to
this problem.

Its not anywhere there as yet but given sufficient time.

Some sort of inductive power transmission from vehicle to car might
allow a better system involving batteries as the power to drive the car
is from external means, and then the battery can go "off grid" for the
bits of road that aren't so equipped.....
--
Tony Sayer

(DA) wrote in news:bfdcb$4db1b5a3$45499b77
:

We\'ve been conditioned to expect that a car can take us 500 km away

I haven't I'm strictly a "miles" sort of chap, if god had meant me to use
kilometers I'm have been born short, fat, greasy and smelling of garlic.

--

All the best,

Chris

Peter Scott wrote:
On 22/04/2011 19:57, Tim Watts wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-22, wrote:
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/...la-701863-.htm
DA wrote:

Donwill wrote:


Interesting little snippet I came across:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...r_shenanigans/


The truth will out :-)
Don

Which truth? That UK (and everyone else) lacks charging stations?

Even if there were charging stations every 50 yards, the technology is
insufficiently mature. Or, in more, er, aggressive terms, it sucks.


But to be fair to a new technology, steam vans and early IC cars sucked
rocks through very tiny straws when they were invented.

I expect there were plenty of people who said stuff like: "I don't
have to
get up 2 hours before I need to travel to heat up my horse" and "where
will
I get a load of coal or cleanish water on my way to the next distant big
town" (when there was a fine infrastructure of inns with stabling
facilities).

That not to say I'm putting my bets on battery powered cars
specifically -
there are other choices, but I do see electric cars coming to maturity at
some point, and the road to there can only be achieved by going
through the
evolutionary period first like most other things.

I used to think bio-diesel was a good idea until it appeared to be the
case
that it displaces too much food producing land.

I am a firm believer in nuclear power which tends to imply (mostly) that
electric cars are a good thing to be developing. As to whether battery
technology will get there (at least it is a well researched area
thanks to
the proliferation of portable electronics) or whether it will be hydrogen
fuel cells or even remain with IC engines but powered by alcohol from
algae
farms all remains to be seen. But someone has to be trying new stuff, and
like the first "personal computer" and "mobile phone", the prototypes
will
expensive and sucky.

Cheers

Tim


I heard what I thought was a bright idea the other day. The problem with
solar energy sources like wind and light is that they vary a lot and so
don't always produce when the energy is needed. PV leccy is produced
during the day but needed at night and so on, and many posters have
pointed out that we do not have means of storage at sensible cost. If
there were lots of electric cars with batteries that charged reasonably
quickly, they could act as a huge reservoir of electrical energy.


So, how often you do fill up the car BECAUSE its blowing a gale, or is
brilliantly sunny, and never ever fill it up between?


Its complete nonsense that car battery storage could possibly compensate
for renewable deficiencies.

And I reckon 1/3rd of the total worlds know lithium reserves would be
needed to cover a couple of cold dull still UK weeks in decemeber.

At the end of which, one could go shopping until the wind blew again.




Lots of scenarios present themselves. As an example I might have a home
PV array and a car. During the day the car charges when I'm not using
it. During the night, I can use some of the energy to power my home or,
if there is a surge in national demand, a modest amount of electricity
is bought from each car connected to the system, and then sold back if
needed later. Another example. I'm making more PV elec during the day
than I need. The system buys it and sells it to cars charging at work
for the trip home. The idea thrives on intelligence and variation of
generation and use. I can't see that it's beyond our technology now.

Clearly we'll continue to need a base of steady generation but to me an
idea like this looks promising.


Its actually ********. Everything that looks remotely like making
Renewable energy better look significantly more likely to mean we could
build 100% nuclear powers stations, and top up the cars on cheap rate at
night.

A far more reasonable proposition.

I agree with Tim about algae. The efficiencies they are already
achieving in trials, and the fact that food-growing land is not
required, makes this a very promising bio-fuel.


The overall efficiency of sunlight to fuel is still crap so its still
needs land area in country sized chunk, or sea area in country sized chunks.


The short answer to renewable energy is that here isn't enough free
energy in sunlight to actually satisfy anyone's needs, and if you try,
you end up with structures of country sizes, that totally modify the
environment more than CO2 does.



Peter Scott

Chris Wilson wrote:
(DA) wrote in news:bfdcb$4db1b5a3$45499b77
:

We\'ve been conditioned to expect that a car can take us 500 km away

I haven't I'm strictly a "miles" sort of chap, if god had meant me to use
kilometers I'm have been born short, fat, greasy and smelling of garlic.

Sounds like our harry...

On 22/04/11 19:45, Tim Watts wrote:


I saw a test car and little charging station in London the other day,
somewhere near Covent Garden in a side street.

The charging station was mains and seemed to carry a 16A Commando, but it
*could* have been 32A. Car was little - about the size of a SMART. Had kids
to not get squashed, so no chance for a good look.

Horrible little toy things. For people who don't really need a car. And
why should my council tax be paying for these charging points, and I
never got an answer from the council about who pays for the electricity.
(There is a charging point down the end of the road, I have yet to see
it used)


--
djc

In message , Tim Watts
wrote
I am a firm believer in nuclear power which tends to imply (mostly) that
electric cars are a good thing to be developing. As to whether battery
technology will get there (at least it is a well researched area thanks to
the proliferation of portable electronics)

But has battery technology actually improved that much recently? In
portable electronic equipment it is the reduction in the silicon
geometry, requiring less power, that has improved battery charge life.
It is the improvements in the electronics technology and not the battery
technology.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Alan wrote:
In message , Tim Watts
wrote
I am a firm believer in nuclear power which tends to imply (mostly) that
electric cars are a good thing to be developing. As to whether battery
technology will get there (at least it is a well researched area
thanks to
the proliferation of portable electronics)

But has battery technology actually improved that much recently? In
portable electronic equipment it is the reduction in the silicon
geometry, requiring less power, that has improved battery charge life.
It is the improvements in the electronics technology and not the battery
technology.

A typical lithium battery is at least 50% of the theoretical energy
density. Its hard to see things improving much.

John Rumm wrote:
On 22/04/2011 21:14, tony sayer wrote:
What you need is a car that runs on Rechargable DDDDDDDDD Cells. As they
get low you pull into the filling station where your set are ejected and
begin recharge, and a fully charged set are installed. In 30 hours time,
your ejected set can be rotated into the next car that pulls in.


What we really need is to dump the idea of batteries, and work on a more
efficient heat engine or fuel cell for the primary power.

Electrical transmission is fine as it stands but the electrical to
chemical conversion and back again is not the real long term answer to
this problem.

Its not anywhere there as yet but given sufficient time.

Some sort of inductive power transmission from vehicle to car might
allow a better system involving batteries as the power to drive the car
is from external means, and then the battery can go "off grid" for the
bits of road that aren't so equipped.....

Car with a built in nuke genset?

Now you are talking..

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
What you need is a car that runs on Rechargable DDDDDDDDD Cells. As they
get low you pull into the filling station where your set are ejected and
begin recharge, and a fully charged set are installed. In 30 hours time,
your ejected set can be rotated into the next car that pulls in.


What we really need is to dump the idea of batteries, and work on a more
efficient heat engine or fuel cell for the primary power.

Electrical transmission is fine as it stands but the electrical to
chemical conversion and back again is not the real long term answer to
this problem.

Its not anywhere there as yet but given sufficient time.

Some sort of inductive power transmission from vehicle to car might
allow a better system involving batteries as the power to drive the car
is from external means, and then the battery can go "off grid" for the
bits of road that aren't so equipped.....

Gas Turbine?

e.g.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...osts-200K.html

Shame about the cost though...

Gordon

John Rumm wrote:
On 22/04/2011 22:39, ARWadsworth wrote:

Anyone with the right key and a little knowledge can use a lampost
to DIY a charging station.

I wonder what current you can pull from one of those? The wiring in it
might not be up to much, but its probably got a decent sized feeder
under it!

100A at a guess.

The last exposed lampost I saw [1] was just tapped into one of the phases in
the street into a 16A MCB for the actual lamp.


[1] Thanks to a female driver in a BMW on 1 way street doing a 3 point turn.
The damage knocked out one of the phases at the hotel I was working in.


--
Adam

The overall efficiency of sunlight to fuel is still crap so its still
needs land area in country sized chunk, or sea area in country sized
chunks.


The short answer to renewable energy is that here isn't enough free
energy in sunlight to actually satisfy anyone's needs, and if you try,
you end up with structures of country sizes, that totally modify the
environment more than CO2 does.



Peter Scott



I have noticed that you tend to think that we are looking for a single
answer to our energy needs, and vilify anything that can't do that. In
your case its nuclear. Like oil, whichever non-renewable fuel you opt
for *will* run out. I agree that we need nuclear but we also need as
wide a range of energy sources as we can make work. The sun is an
obvious source, even if not to you. When you think of solar methods you
assume they will be stuck in the present. We are at the Newcomen steam
engine stage of solar - very poor efficiency and rather expensive at
present. It'll never fly! But there is a survival imperitive and lots of
money to be made, so you can be sure that the solar methods in twenty,
perhaps even ten, years time will be greatly better than now. What we
need is a wide mix of sources, with as high a percentage of renewables
as is feasible.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 23:29:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


Some sort of inductive power transmission from vehicle to car might
allow a better system involving batteries as the power to drive the car
is from external means, and then the battery can go "off grid" for the
bits of road that aren't so equipped.....

Many moons ago someone did produce a prototype electric car that
incorporated a small diesel generator (basically the V twin engine
from a small dumper truck). The idea was to charge the batteries from
the mains as normal but also to run the diesel generator at a fixed
(very efficient) load/throttle setting so it acted as a range
extender. Using lead acid batteries (this pre-dated Lithium by
decades!) it gave a useful range of a few hundred miles and average
fuel efficiency of 100MPG or better.

Peter Scott wrote:


The overall efficiency of sunlight to fuel is still crap so its still
needs land area in country sized chunk, or sea area in country sized
chunks.


The short answer to renewable energy is that here isn't enough free
energy in sunlight to actually satisfy anyone's needs, and if you try,
you end up with structures of country sizes, that totally modify the
environment more than CO2 does.



Peter Scott



I have noticed that you tend to think that we are looking for a single
answer to our energy needs, and vilify anything that can't do that. In
your case its nuclear. Like oil, whichever non-renewable fuel you opt
for *will* run out. I agree that we need nuclear but we also need as
wide a range of energy sources as we can make work.

No we don't. This is another renewables fallacy.

I think you should buy a computer made out of germanium transistors.
And wire your house up with iron wire, not copper.

We need one source that works, and is cheap. There is no reason
whatsoever to have sources that don't work and aren't cheap just because
of 'diversity'

Its not a bloody biosystem.



The sun is an
obvious source, even if not to you.

That because I can Do Sums, understand entropy and complicated things
like overall systems analysis. It obvious to ME that its pointless to
even try, in the same way I understand that a lithium battery powered
airliner will never make it across the Atlantic.


You don't have to have a degree in engineering and electrical sciences,
but it helps..


When you think of solar methods you
assume they will be stuck in the present.

No I simply have to assume they will not break the laws of physics.


We are at the Newcomen steam
engine stage of solar - very poor efficiency

20% is as good as any steam loco ever got, and we are close to that.on PV.


and rather expensive at
present.
and for all time.

It'll never fly!

Actually pure solar powered aircraft have flown.

But there is a survival imperitive

There is. and nuclear is the answer to that one.

and lots of
money to be made,

Indeed, but only by giving solar a guaranteed subsidy we cant afford,
which does nothing to actually reduce our energy needs in any other way.

o you can be sure that the solar methods in twenty,
perhaps even ten, years time will be greatly better than now. What we
need is a wide mix of sources, with as high a percentage of renewables
as is feasible.

No we don't. renewable energy is not usable energy at any scale. Its
pure fantasy to pretend it ever could be.

It only exists because of the incredible lack of education and sheer
intellectual laziness of people like you, who have simply failed to run
the numbers and consider the real implication of what - say - pulling
30% of the sunlight off the face of the UK would do to e.g. plant life.
And indeed the climate.


All renewable energy has a massive impact on the environment by its very
nature. It requires huge structures to *alter* the natural flow of
sunlight, tidal power rainfall or wind. Because the energy density is so
low.

By contrast a nuclear set is tiny. It has virtually no impact at all.

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space? The waste energy
from renewables would have been here anyway. If you know theromodynamics
as you allege you will know that all processes produce a high percentage
of non-usable energy dependent on the start and finish temperatures.

Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

--
Tim Watts

On 23/04/2011 12:01, Tim Watts wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

Perhaps. Do you know? The point I was making is that the waste from
renewables is here already. Nuclear generates *new* waste energy. It is
not as benign as TNP implies and to suggest otherwise distorts the
argument. I believe we need nuclear but it is certainly not the *only*
answer. Far from it. Apart from anything else, nuclear fuels *will* run out.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

No we don't. renewable energy is not usable energy at any scale. Its
pure fantasy to pretend it ever could be.

You're full of it today.
Tell that to the thousands of diy solar folk who are quite happily
heating their water for free and the cost of some recycled materials.

In your own way, you're just as wild-eyed and bushy-haired as the
treehugging ******s on the other side.

Peter Scott wrote:
I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

yes. Its hardly a huge fraction of the total.

Or you could pump it into the deep crust and heat the earth's core up.
0000001 degrees C.


The waste energy
from renewables would have been here anyway. If you know theromodynamics
as you allege you will know that all processes produce a high percentage
of non-usable energy dependent on the start and finish temperatures.


Precisely.
All free energy - low entropy energy - ends up as low grade heat.

And its because the renewables take a large proportion of the free
energy out of natural thermal flows, and turn it all into low grade heat
just as much as the nuclear - that they disrupt the environment MORE.

I heard what I thought was a bright idea the other day. The problem with
solar energy sources like wind and light is that they vary a lot and so
don't always produce when the energy is needed. PV leccy is produced
during the day but needed at night and so on, and many posters have
pointed out that we do not have means of storage at sensible cost. If
there were lots of electric cars with batteries that charged reasonably
quickly, they could act as a huge reservoir of electrical energy.

Lots of scenarios present themselves. As an example I might have a home
PV array and a car. During the day the car charges when I'm not using
it. During the night, I can use some of the energy to power my home or,
if there is a surge in national demand, a modest amount of electricity
is bought from each car connected to the system, and then sold back if
needed later. Another example. I'm making more PV elec during the day
than I need. The system buys it and sells it to cars charging at work
for the trip home. The idea thrives on intelligence and variation of
generation and use. I can't see that it's beyond our technology now.

Clearly we'll continue to need a base of steady generation but to me an
idea like this looks promising.

I agree with Tim about algae. The efficiencies they are already
achieving in trials, and the fact that food-growing land is not
required, makes this a very promising bio-fuel.

Peter Scott


OTOH a few new nuclear stations will be a much simpler more reliable
more ecologically sound bet....
--
Tony Sayer

I have noticed that you tend to think that we are looking for a single
answer to our energy needs, and vilify anything that can't do that. In
your case its nuclear. Like oil, whichever non-renewable fuel you opt
for *will* run out. I agree that we need nuclear but we also need as
wide a range of energy sources as we can make work. The sun is an
obvious source, even if not to you. When you think of solar methods you
assume they will be stuck in the present. We are at the Newcomen steam
engine stage of solar - very poor efficiency and rather expensive at
present. It'll never fly! But there is a survival imperitive and lots of
money to be made, so you can be sure that the solar methods in twenty,
perhaps even ten, years time will be greatly better than now. What we
need is a wide mix of sources, with as high a percentage of renewables
as is feasible.


I don't think for a moment that renewables could cope with what the
worlds demands are likely to be when the Oil gets that low. Unless we
are going to have a sea change in the way we work and behave and
expect...
--
Tony Sayer

Tim Watts wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

ALL of the rest ...

The only issue with AWG is by how much the earth's temperature will rise
before it does..

And that's where I have a big problem. In order to heat the earth
surface, you need to reduce the troposphere temperature otherwise the
radiation outwards will be the same.

But a cold troposphere and a hot atmosphere means a lot of thermal activity.

Which will naturally carry hot air upwards where it can radiate more..

So I don't see the earth warming up much at all. I do see more violent
weather though..as the excess surface energy gets mixed up and
dissipates itself finally in te upper atmosphere where it can all
radiate away.

Peter Scott wrote:
On 23/04/2011 12:01, Tim Watts wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

Perhaps. Do you know? The point I was making is that the waste from
renewables is here already. Nuclear generates *new* waste energy. It is
not as benign as TNP implies and to suggest otherwise distorts the
argument. I believe we need nuclear but it is certainly not the *only*
answer. Far from it. Apart from anything else, nuclear fuels *will* run
out.

When the universe dies a heat death, yes.

And all we have left is cold iron.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

No we don't. renewable energy is not usable energy at any scale. Its
pure fantasy to pretend it ever could be.

You're full of it today.
Tell that to the thousands of diy solar folk who are quite happily
heating their water for free and the cost of some recycled materials.


that not at scale. That's peanuts.

I can cut enough twigs to boil a kette of water from a hazel bush.


I am not talking Kw minutes, I am talking gigawatt years.


In your own way, you're just as wild-eyed and bushy-haired as the
treehugging ******s on the other side.

Nope. Do the sums.

Calculate what 50GW of *reliable 24x7*renewable energy does to the country.

Basically the country doesn't exist anymore. Its one huge power station.

tony sayer wrote:
I have noticed that you tend to think that we are looking for a single
answer to our energy needs, and vilify anything that can't do that. In
your case its nuclear. Like oil, whichever non-renewable fuel you opt
for *will* run out. I agree that we need nuclear but we also need as
wide a range of energy sources as we can make work. The sun is an
obvious source, even if not to you. When you think of solar methods you
assume they will be stuck in the present. We are at the Newcomen steam
engine stage of solar - very poor efficiency and rather expensive at
present. It'll never fly! But there is a survival imperitive and lots of
money to be made, so you can be sure that the solar methods in twenty,
perhaps even ten, years time will be greatly better than now. What we
need is a wide mix of sources, with as high a percentage of renewables
as is feasible.


I don't think for a moment that renewables could cope with what the
worlds demands are likely to be when the Oil gets that low. Unless we
are going to have a sea change in the way we work and behave and
expect...

Precisely. If renewables cant do the whole job, or even more than a
small faction of the job, and MUST be backed up with fossil fuelled
stations, because there isn't enough hydro in Europe to back them up,
nor ever will be, then what on earth is the point of having any?
The nuclear solution fully replaces fossil fuel. Renewables cant do that.

And cost far far more.

Since we patently cant do without nuclear, we have to take on the safety
and waste issues. Once we have taken those on, why on earth do we need
renewables?

Peter Scott wrote:

On 23/04/2011 12:01, Tim Watts wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

Perhaps. Do you know?

I'm pretty sure of it, yes. Where else could it go when the earth is in
steady state?

Where do you think it goes? The earth is a big non black body radiator. It
receives solar input on one side, releases some extra stored energt as
people burn fossil and nuclear fuels and radiates from all sides all the
time.

The projected footprint of the Earth is about 1.3e14m2, the solar radiation
receieved from the sun about 1.3kW/m2 so the solar gain of the earth is
around 1.6e14 kW in total which is 160,000 TW

If we factor in cloud cover and ice and reduce the solar power being
absorbed to 1/10 as a big fat guess, that's still 16,000 TW

If Britain needs 50GW peak (we'll assume constant as a worse case) and
Britain has around 1/50 of the earths population, then assuming everyone
uses that much energy (another huge overestimate) the total power generation
for the world would be 2.5TW.

All the wild fudges I've put help the case you've postulated but I think
you'd agree that an extra 2.5TW out of 16,000TW is bugger all, even if the
heating of the earth due to extra input was non linear.

It's a real beer mat calculation so feel free to find errors. ;-

The point I was making is that the waste from
renewables is here already. Nuclear generates *new* waste energy. It is
not as benign as TNP implies and to suggest otherwise distorts the
argument. I believe we need nuclear but it is certainly not the *only*
answer. Far from it. Apart from anything else, nuclear fuels *will* run
out.

--
Tim Watts

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

No we don't. renewable energy is not usable energy at any scale. Its
pure fantasy to pretend it ever could be.

You're full of it today.
Tell that to the thousands of diy solar folk who are quite happily
heating their water for free and the cost of some recycled materials.


that not at scale. That's peanuts.

You said, "any scale". Now, perhaps you'd like to revisit the meaning of
the word "scale".

John Rumm wrote:
On 23/04/2011 12:09, Peter Scott wrote:
On 23/04/2011 12:01, Tim Watts wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as
you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

Perhaps. Do you know? The point I was making is that the waste from
renewables is here already. Nuclear generates *new* waste energy. It is
not as benign as TNP implies and to suggest otherwise distorts the
argument. I believe we need nuclear but it is certainly not the *only*
answer. Far from it. Apart from anything else, nuclear fuels *will* run
out.

Depends on what you mean by "will run out". Using just uranium in single
pass processes - yup there is a finite amount of the stuff that is
easily recoverable. However even that will provide many decades worth of
supply. Liquid salt thorium reactors can provide many many decades more
than uranium (and the two are not exclusive - we can have both).
However, that's assuming that we stick to single pass fuel use (that
recovers around 1% of the actual energy available). Reprocess the stuff
and use it again, or start building a few fast breeders so you can use
the stockpiles of what is currently thought of as "waste" and you
multiply those decades out into many centuries. With luck we might have
a viable fusion process by then.




Precisely. There is enough fissile material to keep us going for 1000
years at present population levels, and if populations increase
beyond what they are, we will run out of space, food and other elements
like copper way before we run out of fuel.

Even faster if we use 30% load average renewables instead of 98%
load average nuclear power stations.

Nuclear power is just a way to get sunlight on the earth in a more
convenient and usable form.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

No we don't. renewable energy is not usable energy at any scale. Its
pure fantasy to pretend it ever could be.
You're full of it today.
Tell that to the thousands of diy solar folk who are quite happily
heating their water for free and the cost of some recycled materials.

that not at scale. That's peanuts.

You said, "any scale". Now, perhaps you'd like to revisit the meaning of
the word "scale".

If you choose to deliberately misinterpret a fairly clear statement to
make a debating point, that's your problem, not mine.

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 22/04/2011 18:35, tim.... wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/...la-701863-.htm
DA wrote:
Huge wrote:

Even if there were charging stations every 50 yards, the technology is
insufficiently mature. Or, in more, er, aggressive terms, it sucks.

The only way any technology improves is through use. No use = sucky
technology.
But charging is only a part of it. Little noise, high torque, lower fuel
(energy) cost, and little to no maintenance of the electrical vehicle are
all playing role.

Basically, the entire article is about how stopping for charging slows you
down. This concept sounds like a no-brainer to me. Of course you have to
plan your route if your range is limited for one reason or another. As one
commenter pointed out, you would not cross Pacific Ocean (8 255nm shortest
trip) in an A320 (3,300 nm average range), you have to plan your route and
stop for refueling twice.

We\'ve been conditioned to expect that a car can take us 500 km away at
any moment we wished. That hasn\'t always been the case and that\'s going
away now. If for no other reason, you at least have to stop and think
about paying for all the gas that you\'ll use on the trip. Thinking a
little ahead and considering if your car has enough charge for the trip
also seems like a reasonable thing to ask of the driver.

But at lease these "refuelling" stops add little time. Refuelling an
electric car takes a long (or longer) than it did to use up the "fuel" that
you gain from each stop increasing the journey time by 200%.

What you need is a car that runs on Rechargable DDDDDDDDD Cells. As
they get low you pull into the filling station where your set are
ejected and begin recharge, and a fully charged set are installed. In
30 hours time, your ejected set can be rotated into the next car that
pulls in.

Just like calor gas cylinders
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

Precisely. There is enough fissile material to keep us going for 1000
years at present population levels, and if populations increase
beyond what they are, we will run out of space,

food and other elements
like copper way before we run out of fuel.

I bet the Pikey's will still find some to nick ;!...


Even faster if we use 30% load average renewables instead of 98%
load average nuclear power stations.

Nuclear power is just a way to get sunlight on the earth in a more
convenient and usable form.

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
Peter Scott wrote:

On 23/04/2011 12:01, Tim Watts wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

I will ignore the comments you make about me and my knowledge, as you do
not know.

If we produce all of our energy from nuclear sources where do you
imagine the 'waste' energy will go? Out into space?

Why not - that's where most of the rest goes.

Perhaps. Do you know?

I'm pretty sure of it, yes. Where else could it go when the earth is in
steady state?

Where do you think it goes? The earth is a big non black body radiator. It
receives solar input on one side, releases some extra stored energt as
people burn fossil and nuclear fuels and radiates from all sides all the
time.

The projected footprint of the Earth is about 1.3e14m2, the solar radiation
receieved from the sun about 1.3kW/m2 so the solar gain of the earth is
around 1.6e14 kW in total which is 160,000 TW

If we factor in cloud cover and ice and reduce the solar power being
absorbed to 1/10 as a big fat guess, that's still 16,000 TW

If Britain needs 50GW peak (we'll assume constant as a worse case) and
Britain has around 1/50 of the earths population, then assuming everyone
uses that much energy (another huge overestimate) the total power generation
for the world would be 2.5TW.

All the wild fudges I've put help the case you've postulated but I think
you'd agree that an extra 2.5TW out of 16,000TW is bugger all, even if the
heating of the earth due to extra input was non linear.

It's a real beer mat calculation so feel free to find errors. ;-

Well collecting that from some obscure places like oceans etc
perhaps;?..

--
Tony Sayer

On 22/04/2011 18:06, DA wrote:
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/...la-701863-.htm
DA wrote:
Huge wrote:

Even if there were charging stations every 50 yards, the technology is
insufficiently mature. Or, in more, er, aggressive terms, it sucks.

The only way any technology improves is through use. No use = sucky
technology.
But charging is only a part of it. Little noise,

Making them much more dangerous to pedestrians.

high torque,

Do I need more than 500 Nm?

lower fuel
(energy) cost, and little to no maintenance of the electrical vehicle are
all playing role.

Basically, the entire article is about how stopping for charging slows you
down. This concept sounds like a no-brainer to me. Of course you have to
plan your route if your range is limited for one reason or another. As one
commenter pointed out, you would not cross Pacific Ocean (8 255nm shortest
trip) in an A320 (3,300 nm average range), you have to plan your route and
stop for refueling twice.

We\'ve been conditioned to expect that a car can take us 500 km away

More like 1500km with mine.

at
any moment we wished. That hasn\'t always been the case and that\'s going
away now. If for no other reason, you at least have to stop and think
about paying for all the gas that you\'ll use on the trip.

The furthest I went along that route was trading in a 19mpg 5 litre V8
petrol motor for a 2.2 litre diesel that does about twice that. The cost
was less of a consideration than having to stop to refuel more than once
a day on a long trip.

Thinking a
little ahead and considering if your car has enough charge for the trip
also seems like a reasonable thing to ask of the driver.

Think ahead and deciding that electric vehicle technology still has too
far to go to make them useful for anything other than a shopping
runabout is more to the point.

You don\'t really need charging stations every 50 yards. But for most
trips one at home and one at the destination point (and a few along the
route for just in case) would make the trip a lot easier. So, yeah, we do
lack charging stations, most especially high power fast charging ones. And
no one argues that a new, faster charging type of batteries is not needed.
It\'s just that they won\'t be developed if there is no demand, and EVs
create the demand.

That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to fill
a car with liquid fuel.

Colin Bignell