On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message


8

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.



Reactor products are used for all manner of things, from medicine to
structural examinations.

That puts them in the same boat by your logic.

On 20/01/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 09:33, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and
speed
or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to 800 miles
on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on the winter
tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It would suit the
needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

You are full of drivel as usual.
When did you last drive 800 miles at 145mph?

I didn't claim that both were possible at the same time, any more than I
would expect an electric car to be able to achieve both maximum range and
maximum speed together. However, a trip of several hundred miles mostly at
continental motorway speeds would not be unusual. I need a car that can do
that comfortably and safely, with reasonable fuel economy and a fair load
carrying capacity. No electric car is going to give me that. They might be
suitable as second cars, to go shopping, but they are noticeable by their
absence from any of the reserved parking spaces in local car parks, so
perhaps not many people think that.

I have no need for such a car.

That is evident from the fact that you have an electric car. However,
you must accept that electric cars are very limited and will only suit a
few people.

On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.

Airport security has long since moved flying a long way down my
preferred modes of transport. Both flying and trains have the problem of
getting around once you reach your destination. Fine if you are heading
for a single city, but I rarely limit myself to that.

Just for holidays these days.

Me too, but now I have a lot more time to take holidays, so take as many
as possible.

Colin Bignell

On 20/01/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
....
I am a trendsetter.
Others will follow later.
Excepting some of the stick-in-the-muds here that can'tsee we are on the
verge of an energy revolution.
They think things can/will always carry on as before.
Well, it's not going to happen.
If you haven't taken precautions, you will be f***d .

I expect that Betamax users though the same way.

Colin Bignell

On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.


Yes, we know that. What would you do with the Thorium, which is the
radioactive waste?

Andy

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.

In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero
cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

The fuel might be free, but recovering the energy from renewables
results in the most expensive form of generation known.

At the moment.
But not in the future.


Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha !! :-)

Arfa

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal
with it.

You really are a ****ing liar harry. You've been told many times that:

1) such waste can be glassified
2) this is being done now
3) it has been being done for 20 years

The difficulty is then what to do with the glass, due to the FUD put
about by liars like you that the material might "leak out" of any
repository it's put in.


Tell me what your experience is to define what is crap and what is not.
Aaah. You read the Daily Mail.


You might like to explain how radioactive material can "leak out" of
the glassy material.

In the meantime, while you try to think up some drivel in response, how
about ceasing to post cock on this ng. Yours in hope rather than
expectation.

Glassifying it is not dealing with the problem.
(Tell me where it is being glassified anyway.)
(Is it being done in the UK?
They still don't know what to do with it when it's been glassyfied..
All it does is it makes it harder to use in a "dirtybomb." They think.

No-one knows what happens to glass after 3,000 years never mind 500,000
years.

You really believe all the soothing crap the nuclear industry puts out.

More than all the alarmist crap you put out Harry ...

Arfa

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 20/01/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:

On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.

Airport security has long since moved flying a long way down my preferred
modes of transport. Both flying and trains have the problem of getting
around once you reach your destination. Fine if you are heading for a
single city, but I rarely limit myself to that.

And fine if you don't mind sitting in a sealed tube full of disease
vectors.


It's not entirely sealed. The air in a 747 is fully exchanged for fresh,
about once per hour as I recall, but yes, you are right that head-colds and
similar do tend to propagate around inside aircraft.

Arfa

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/14 13:56, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Terry Fields
scribeth thus
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.

Within its limited range, limited speed, limited accesories, long
charge times and *hugely* expensive replacement batteries.

As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

I don't need one to know about their shortcomings.


And they won't be really viable until the prime power problem is fixed
and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon;(...

As good as electric transmission is even!...

lithium AIR batteries have te right sort of energy density IN THE LAB to
make a car range of 800 miles and even make a sort of twin otter style
electric aeroplane possible.

I'm surprised by that. The Twin Otter has a pair of fairly substantial turbo
prop motors, and carries what? - about 12 people plus the driver and his
mate ? Would there still actually be any room for the passengers, and could
you build electric motors with comparable power to the turbines, that would
fit in the same space on the wings ?

Arfa

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/14 13:56, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Terry Fields
scribeth thus
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

Run a car on electricity? You must be mental...

It works very well.

Within its limited range, limited speed, limited accesories, long
charge times and *hugely* expensive replacement batteries.

As you obviously don't have one, how would you know?

I don't need one to know about their shortcomings.


And they won't be really viable until the prime power problem is fixed
and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon;(...

As good as electric transmission is even!...

lithium AIR batteries have te right sort of energy density IN THE LAB to
make a car range of 800 miles and even make a sort of twin otter style
electric aeroplane possible.

BUT they don't exist in safe reliable cheap production quantities or any
of the above.

Yet.

top speed will never be an issue with batteries. You can easily have a
140mph electric car, if you don't mind it only having a 10 mile range.


The issue will always be charging them up if they were to become numerous.
It is early days yet.

I am a trendsetter.
Others will follow later.
Excepting some of the stick-in-the-muds here that can'tsee we are on the
verge of an energy revolution.
They think things can/will always carry on as before.
Well, it's not going to happen.
If you haven't taken precautions, you will be f***d .



The only "energy revolution" that's taking place here, is that the
generating industry is being depressed by green policy, to the point that we
will soon only have the capacity of a third world banana republic, to
generate electricity... You are not a trendsetter. You are just following
along behind all the sheep that believe that all this green bollox is
necessary to save the planet. It's the government that haven't taken any
(proper) precautions, and because of that, we will shortly all be ****ed ...

Arfa

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 18:01, harryagain wrote:

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.

Same as any other fuel... all you need is a way to get your hands on it
and use it.

Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.


In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

I'm inclined to agree with you

but we are nowhere near that point yet

Why do you think that?
Just wishfull thinking.
It will take decades to make any changeover in any case.
So the process has to begin now.

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...


You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

All our power industries have governemt subsidies.

but we don't need to subsidise this one

making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to
be playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's
that or nothing.

Exactly. Nothing may be what we have in the future.
The clothheads are planning that right now.

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.
Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Of all the renewables, PV is by far the easiest to fit in a hurry, if we
ever get to the point of needing to

Tthey have a limited useful lifetime. Fitting them now in case we need
them in 25 years is not helping

No one knows for sure the lifespan of todays solar panels. But some have run
for forty years.
It has to be rolling programme of replacement/installation.
In ten years, never mind twenty five years, the world will be a different
place energywise.
In spite of goverment bollix about shale gas.
Shale gas brings us breathing space that's all.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/01/2014 19:21, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal
with it.

You really are a ****ing liar harry. You've been told many times that:

1) such waste can be glassified
2) this is being done now
3) it has been being done for 20 years

The difficulty is then what to do with the glass, due to the FUD put
about by liars like you that the material might "leak out" of any
repository it's put in.


Tell me what your experience is to define what is crap and what is not.
Aaah. You read the Daily Mail.


You might like to explain how radioactive material can "leak out" of
the glassy material.

In the meantime, while you try to think up some drivel in response, how
about ceasing to post cock on this ng. Yours in hope rather than
expectation.

Glassifying it is not dealing with the problem.
(Tell me where it is being glassified anyway.)
(Is it being done in the UK?
They still don't know what to do with it when it's been glassyfied..
All it does is it makes it harder to use in a "dirtybomb." They think.

No-one knows what happens to glass after 3,000 years never mind 500,000
years.

However *we* do know that its not very radioactive if it doesn't decay in
a few hundred years.

We also know the so called highly radioactive waste will have gone through
many half lives in 3000 years and won't exist at all in 500.000 years.

The main reason it isn't all being glassified is because that puts it into
a state that is difficult to reprocess and recover useful elements.
At one time that didn't matter but now it is considered worth doing
reprocessing.

That requires you to store it for a few decades to get rid of the worst of
the waste which isn't useful anyway.


You really believe all the soothing crap the nuclear industry puts out.



You don't believe facts at all.

You're pretty thick aren't you Den? You don't know any facts at all and are
too stupid/idle to find any out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

If it were so simple they would be doing it. And they aren't.
They are just booting the problem up the road.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:05:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

There's not many more blinkered than you here.

Oh, the irony.

If it were viable, it would be being done.
And it isn't.
End of story.

Except we are piling up the nuclear waste with not a clue how to deal
with it.

You really are a ****ing liar harry. You've been told many times that:

1) such waste can be glassified
2) this is being done now
3) it has been being done for 20 years

The difficulty is then what to do with the glass, due to the FUD put
about by liars like you that the material might "leak out" of any
repository it's put in.

Tell me what your experience is to define what is crap and what is not.
Aaah. You read the Daily Mail.

While I'm waiting for my Chinese take away order, yes. But that's the
only time.

You might like to explain how radioactive material can "leak out" of
the glassy material.

In the meantime, while you try to think up some drivel in response, how
about ceasing to post cock on this ng. Yours in hope rather than
expectation.

Glassifying it is not dealing with the problem.

Certainly it is; it stabilises the waste for one thing. Better in glass
than in leaking barrels, f'rinstance.

Ah you are a nuclear expert?
Is it being stored in leaking barrels at the moment?


(Tell me where it is being glassified anyway.)
(Is it being done in the UK?

Sellafield I should imagine.

You imagine? Why not find out before spouting crap?

They still don't know what to do with it when it's been glassyfied..

Yeah they do. It can be put in an underground repository if it can't be
recycled as others have posted.

So where is this "undergrpound repostitory"?
Why isn't one being built if all is so simple?
You are a very simple minded and credulous soul.
Comes from reading the DM. Poisons the brain if you take it seriously.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:28, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 10:47, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could
see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry -
the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of storing
nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed for
the task.


Fiction.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php

Ve-ery interesting.
And where exactly is this wonderful device located?

Wel f***k me. Another pie-in-the-sky that doesn't exist.
More nuclear industry bull****.

You are very credulous.


They have been reprocessing used fuel at Sellafield and other places for
many decades now. They extract plutonium and other radioactive isotopes
from used fuel rods and turn it into MOX fuel to be used in the 30
reactors that are currently using it in Europe, with another 20 licenced
to do so.

That's right. They separate usful fuel from the dross.
But the dross remains.
(The dross is what we are discussing)


Transatomic are a spinoff from MIT, who have a good reputation for doing
good engineering. Bill Gates also has a startup doing work on recycling
nuclear fuel. The only new thing about Transatomic is that their reactor
should be able to use old fuel rods directly. They're hoping to get round
the current hysteria in the USA about reprocessing used fuel.

At least it will give predictable power 24/7.

The USA has reprocessing centres'
Similar to ours.
But nowhere to permanently store the dross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ge..._certain_sites

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 09:25, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could
see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.


And the thorium by product can be used in reactors to generate more power
than the wind turbines ever will.

Ah yes, more pie-in-the-sky.
Tell me where they are.
Nuclear industry is full of "can bes" and "may bes".

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message


8

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.



Reactor products are used for all manner of things, from medicine to
structural examinations.

That puts them in the same boat by your logic.

In tiny quantities of a few grams. (That still are expensive to dispose of
and dangerous)
Example.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-hospita...c=lgwn#Q2vAmFU
The clear up cost was millions from this tiny example.
ISTR four of them died.

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.


Yes, we know that. What would you do with the Thorium, which is the
radioactive waste?

Andy

Neodymium is not always associated with thorium.
Just the Chines choose to extract this particular lot for short term
ecomonic gain.
The neodymium itself has radio active isotopes.
You seem to have imbibed a lot of urban myth.
http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/resource/ptable/nd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium#Precautions

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 09:33, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

You don't need to own one to know that they are limited in range and
speed
or that they take a long time to recharge. My car can do up to 800
miles
on a full tank, can cruise the autobahn at 145mph (130mph on the
winter
tyres I have on now) and can refuel in a few minutes. It would suit
the
needs of a lot more people than an electric car would.

You are full of drivel as usual.
When did you last drive 800 miles at 145mph?

I didn't claim that both were possible at the same time, any more than I
would expect an electric car to be able to achieve both maximum range
and
maximum speed together. However, a trip of several hundred miles mostly
at
continental motorway speeds would not be unusual. I need a car that can
do
that comfortably and safely, with reasonable fuel economy and a fair
load
carrying capacity. No electric car is going to give me that. They might
be
suitable as second cars, to go shopping, but they are noticeable by
their
absence from any of the reserved parking spaces in local car parks, so
perhaps not many people think that.

I have no need for such a car.

That is evident from the fact that you have an electric car. However, you
must accept that electric cars are very limited and will only suit a few
people.

On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.

Airport security has long since moved flying a long way down my preferred
modes of transport. Both flying and trains have the problem of getting
around once you reach your destination. Fine if you are heading for a
single city, but I rarely limit myself to that.

Just for holidays these days.

Me too, but now I have a lot more time to take holidays, so take as many
as possible.

Colin Bignell

The interesting places, you have to fly.
Electric cars are in their infancy.
They will get better.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 20/01/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:

On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.

Airport security has long since moved flying a long way down my preferred
modes of transport. Both flying and trains have the problem of getting
around once you reach your destination. Fine if you are heading for a
single city, but I rarely limit myself to that.

And fine if you don't mind sitting in a sealed tube full of disease
vectors.


Do you know what a "disease vector "is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease...Basic_concepts

You are more likely to pick up a disease from a vector outdoors.
Or even in your own house.

You seem to be a bit paranoid and illogical.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I am a trendsetter.
Others will follow later.
Excepting some of the stick-in-the-muds here that can'tsee we are on the
verge of an energy revolution.
They think things can/will always carry on as before.
Well, it's not going to happen.
If you haven't taken precautions, you will be f***d .

I expect that Betamax users though the same way.


Dunno. I never bought one.
Or a DVDHD player either.
DAB is a bit suspect.

I always tell these solar panel people that whatever the saving to be made, I'd gladly pay double that figure not to have the appearance of my house wrecked by the hideous things.
Terry.

On 21/01/2014 06:57, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
They have been reprocessing used fuel at Sellafield and other places for
many decades now. They extract plutonium and other radioactive isotopes
from used fuel rods and turn it into MOX fuel to be used in the 30
reactors that are currently using it in Europe, with another 20 licenced
to do so.

That's right. They separate usful fuel from the dross.
But the dross remains.
(The dross is what we are discussing)

Which could easily be disposed of, if the anti-nuclear lobby were not so
adamant that it not be stored within 8,000 miles of them. The dross, as
you call it, is much less radioactive and more easily stored than what
goes into the process, too.

But, as has been shown, you are so anti-nuclear that you refuse to read
anything positive about the nuclear industry, preferring to use energy
production methods that have been proven to increase greenhouse gas
production relative to burning coal as well as large amounts of chemical
and radioactive waste. However, as that waste is produced many thousands
of miles away from you, you seem not to care about it. I rather think
that if someone were to open a neodymium production facility near your
home that you might think differently.

Transatomic are a spinoff from MIT, who have a good reputation for doing
good engineering. Bill Gates also has a startup doing work on recycling
nuclear fuel. The only new thing about Transatomic is that their reactor
should be able to use old fuel rods directly. They're hoping to get round
the current hysteria in the USA about reprocessing used fuel.

At least it will give predictable power 24/7.

The USA has reprocessing centres'
Similar to ours.
But nowhere to permanently store the dross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ge..._certain_sites


The lack of permanent storage is due to the hysteria being whipped up by
the anti-nuclear lobby. Many suitable sites have been identified, but
NIMBYism rules.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 21/01/2014 07:00, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 09:25, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could
see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry - the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.


And the thorium by product can be used in reactors to generate more power
than the wind turbines ever will.

Ah yes, more pie-in-the-sky.
Tell me where they are.
Nuclear industry is full of "can bes" and "may bes".


India and China.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 21/01/2014 07:15, harryagain wrote:


Neodymium is not always associated with thorium.
Just the Chines choose to extract this particular lot for short term
ecomonic gain.

So they're not trying to save the world, then? You disappoint me.

The neodymium itself has radio active isotopes.
You seem to have imbibed a lot of urban myth.
http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/resource/ptable/nd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium#Precautions


I'm not sure what your point is here, Harry. With one breath, you claim
that windpower using neodymium magnets is the greatest thing since
sliced bread, with the next, you're admitting that (a) neodymium has a
radioactive form, and (b) producing it produces radioactive waste. Which
is it? Dangerous or not? We already know that wind power using large
neodymium magnets increases CO2 production per kilowatt hour of energy
consumed. Ask the Danes, they are currently having to buy coal produced
electricity from Germany, as they keep running out of wind.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:


The interesting places, you have to fly.

No you don't. Anywhere on earth can be reached by ground transport, The
*only* reason to fly, while producing 10 times the CO2 of ground
transport, is to save time on the journey. The last time I flew anywhere
was when I needed to get to Venice within 6 hours of leaving
Stoke-on-Trent to drive a coach back when the driver broke his ankle.
The time before that was to get to South Africa for a funeral and back
for work.

All the land transport links used by Phileas Fogg still exist, and the
same journey can be made in the same time, as Michael Palin proved a few
years ago.

Electric cars are in their infancy.
They will get better.


Electric vehicle technlogy is mature. Batteries are already close to
their theoretocal limits for energy density and charge/ discharge
efficiency, as are electric motors. The technology is mature, in some
ways more so than internal combustion. Any improvements in electric
vehicle technology in the foreseeable future will be incremental rather
than revolutionary. Unless someone invents Robert Heinlein's "Shipstone"
power store, in which case all bets are off.

Until 1902, the fastest vehicle in the world (At 105.882 kph) was an
electric car. Since then, they've only doubled in speed, whereas IC
engined cars can now do over 700 kph (707.408, if you want to split hairs).

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:17:51 +0000, harryagain wrote:

Electric cars are in their infancy.

Tell that to Camille Jenatzy or Ferdinand Porsche.

On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:
....
I have no need for such a car.

That is evident from the fact that you have an electric car. However, you
must accept that electric cars are very limited and will only suit a few
people.

On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.

Airport security has long since moved flying a long way down my preferred
modes of transport. Both flying and trains have the problem of getting
around once you reach your destination. Fine if you are heading for a
single city, but I rarely limit myself to that.

Just for holidays these days.

Me too, but now I have a lot more time to take holidays, so take as many
as possible.

Colin Bignell

The interesting places, you have to fly.

If you have an electric car, yes you would. I would also find it rather
difficult to drive to Madeira, as there don't seem to be ferries any
more. However, all of Europe, the closer parts of Asia and North Africa
are within driving distance. There are enough interesting places in that
area to keep me busy for the rest of my days.

Electric cars are in their infancy.

They have been around longer than ICE cars. Interestingly, Thomas
Parker, who put a practical electric car on the streets of London a year
before Carl Benz completed his first car, is thought to have been
looking for a cleaner mode of transport in a heavily polluted London.

They will get better.

They are unlikely to be able to match similarly priced ICE vehicles for
range and speed and certainly won't be able to refuel as quickly.

OTOH, the Laser Power Systems thorium powered car might well be a better
option than the ICE car, if they can sort out the engineering problems
of utilising all the energy it can create. That really is a technology
in its infancy.

Colin Bignell

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"tim......" wrote in message
...


You are a hlf wit.
High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

No they weren't

All our power industries have governemt subsidies.

but we don't need to subsidise this one

making electricity from PV as a commercial exercise is a stupid game to
be playing. PV is the option of last resort for locations where it's
that or nothing.

Exactly. Nothing may be what we have in the future.
The clothheads are planning that right now.

The cost of renewable fuel is zero and always will be.
Infra structure has always been expensive ands always will be.

Of all the renewables, PV is by far the easiest to fit in a hurry, if we
ever get to the point of needing to

Tthey have a limited useful lifetime. Fitting them now in case we need
them in 25 years is not helping

No one knows for sure the lifespan of todays solar panels. But some have
run for forty years.
It has to be rolling programme of replacement/installation.
In ten years, never mind twenty five years, the world will be a different
place energywise.
In spite of goverment bollix about shale gas.
Shale gas brings us breathing space that's all.

Yep. Breathing space to getr the nukes built ...

Arfa

On 21/01/14 08:51, John Williamson wrote:
On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:


The interesting places, you have to fly.

No you don't. Anywhere on earth can be reached by ground transport, The
*only* reason to fly, while producing 10 times the CO2 of ground
transport, is to save time on the journey. The last time I flew anywhere
was when I needed to get to Venice within 6 hours of leaving
Stoke-on-Trent to drive a coach back when the driver broke his ankle.
The time before that was to get to South Africa for a funeral and back
for work.

All the land transport links used by Phileas Fogg still exist, and the
same journey can be made in the same time, as Michael Palin proved a few
years ago.

Electric cars are in their infancy.
They will get better.


Electric vehicle technlogy is mature. Batteries are already close to
their theoretocal limits for energy density and charge/ discharge
efficiency, as are electric motors. The technology is mature, in some
ways more so than internal combustion. Any improvements in electric
vehicle technology in the foreseeable future will be incremental rather
than revolutionary. Unless someone invents Robert Heinlein's "Shipstone"
power store, in which case all bets are off.

Until 1902, the fastest vehicle in the world (At 105.882 kph) was an
electric car. Since then, they've only doubled in speed, whereas IC
engined cars can now do over 700 kph (707.408, if you want to split hairs).


No one has bothered to go for a speed record in an electric car.

400MPH should be easily possible.

AS I said, lithium air batteries are the ONLY technology that has a HOPE
of making what we would feel was a 'decent' battery electric car, and
that's at least ten years off any potential battery, and 20 off wide
scale adoption.

All the other technology is there already as you can see from e.g.
Tesla, which is a perfectly decent car except you don't get more than
100 miles out of its 'tank'.

If it could be developed to 600 miles and the battery was less than
£5000 it would be a market changer.

Unfortunately its existing technology is more like £25,000 and 100 miles..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 21/01/14 09:33, Nightjar wrote:
On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:38, harryagain wrote:
...
I have no need for such a car.

That is evident from the fact that you have an electric car. However,
you
must accept that electric cars are very limited and will only suit a few
people.

On the ocassion I go on along journey, I fly or take the train.

Airport security has long since moved flying a long way down my
preferred
modes of transport. Both flying and trains have the problem of getting
around once you reach your destination. Fine if you are heading for a
single city, but I rarely limit myself to that.

Just for holidays these days.

Me too, but now I have a lot more time to take holidays, so take as many
as possible.

Colin Bignell

The interesting places, you have to fly.

If you have an electric car, yes you would. I would also find it rather
difficult to drive to Madeira, as there don't seem to be ferries any
more. However, all of Europe, the closer parts of Asia and North Africa
are within driving distance. There are enough interesting places in that
area to keep me busy for the rest of my days.

Electric cars are in their infancy.

They have been around longer than ICE cars. Interestingly, Thomas
Parker, who put a practical electric car on the streets of London a year
before Carl Benz completed his first car, is thought to have been
looking for a cleaner mode of transport in a heavily polluted London.

They will get better.

They are unlikely to be able to match similarly priced ICE vehicles for
range and speed and certainly won't be able to refuel as quickly.

OTOH, the Laser Power Systems thorium powered car might well be a better
option than the ICE car, if they can sort out the engineering problems
of utilising all the energy it can create. That really is a technology
in its infancy.

Colin Bignell

More likely you will see nuclear powered freight haulers.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harryagain wrote:

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.

In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

The fuel might be free, but recovering the energy from renewables
results in the most expensive form of generation known.

At the moment. But not in the future.

In the future you talk about, we're all dead, combusted by the CO2
increases that renewables cause.

--
Terry Fields

On 21/01/14 11:29, Terry Fields wrote:
harryagain wrote:

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote

Precisely, which is wind farms are such a waste of space - they need so
much of it for teeny returns in usable energy.

In the future that will be offset by the fact of renewable fuel being
zero cost, while fossil fuel costs have rocketed.

The fuel might be free, but recovering the energy from renewables
results in the most expensive form of generation known.

At the moment. But not in the future.

In the future you talk about, we're all dead, combusted by the CO2
increases that renewables cause.

In fact if you look at the EROI of renewables it is clear we only can
make them at the price we can now because of access to cheap fossil fuel
and nuclear power.

Remove those and the cost of renewable energy trebles..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:16:48 +0000
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No one has bothered to go for a speed record in an electric car.

Not totally true:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051252

but still a long way behind Andy Green.

--
Davey.

harryagain wrote:

Electric cars are in their infancy.
They will get better.

That was said in 1962 when I looked into it in detail. They haven't
progressed significantly in the last half century and there is no
evidence that there will be any more progress in the next half century.

On 21/01/14 11:40, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:16:48 +0000
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No one has bothered to go for a speed record in an electric car.

Not totally true:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051252

but still a long way behind Andy Green.


That is essentially because yu run into severe limits using driven wheel
technology.

I cant remember the land speed record for cars driven by wheels, not jet
engines. But its in the 400mph range IIRC.

Oh thanks wiki. Yes Donald Campbell still holds that at 403mph in
Bluebird from 1964..


No reason why an electric car couldn't do that.

The limiting factor is the amount of kinetic energy you need to add
versus battery weight to do it.

If you towed te car up to a couple of hundred before kicking in the
leccy it should be easier :-)


Doing it with jets is really just about trying to keep a supersonic
aircraft on a runway when it really wants to fly.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 21/01/14 11:56, Capitol wrote:
harryagain wrote:

Electric cars are in their infancy.
They will get better.

That was said in 1962 when I looked into it in detail. They haven't
progressed significantly in the last half century and there is no
evidence that there will be any more progress in the next half century.

The electric car is, like the heavier than air aeroplane, feasible once
you have the right power - or energy - to weight power source.

The problem boils down to one simple thing. The battery.

When I first started with nickel powered electric model aircraft, they
were able to reasonably get up and waffle around for ten minutes if you
were careful. I once kept one up for 25.

Lithium polymer trebled the duration or the power - whatever. With
lithium we had 1 hour plus flights, or vertical climb ability, and even
ducted fans for the jets became a simple matter.

I did a LOT of analysis, especially on the limits of the technology. We
could not match with any reasonable duration the best tuned pipe racing
2 strokes, but we were getting very close. We could certainly exceed for
10-15 minute durations the average cooking IC setup.

Lithium polymer was about 3 times the energy density of nickel
technology. It took electric models from 'oddities' to 'standard'

Development was rapid with cells appearing each year that were safer and
lower impedance than the year before. Now we have packs that can be
safely,discharged in a minute and a bit, giving for that period
phenomenal power to weight. Some of them even last a few hundred
charges..:-)

But the energy density has plateau-ed.
Its around 60-70% of theoretical maximum.

Lithium is the best material there is, so there is nowhere else to go,
except...

Lithium air.

If half the electrolyte is in the air itself, you don't need to carry it
in the battery. IN the same way that you don't need to carry the oxygen
to run a fuel engine with,.

the theoretical energy density is 5 times better than lithium ion.

Its as good as a tank of diesel. AND better still, whilst a diesel
engine is only 40% efficient, the electric motor is easy to get to 80%
and not hard to break 90%. And an electric powertrain is simpler and
lighter than an IC one, and should need less maintenance.
Add in regenerative braking and no idle losses at traffic lights and you
have the potential for a BEV to exceed a fuel car in every respect.

BUT..

"As of 2013 many challenges confront designers of Li-air batteries,
limiting them to the laboratory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium...%93air_battery

So its a bit like nuclear fusion. Yes the theory says its al possible
but the question passes from physics to engineering: how to solve the
inherent problems and produce a workable battery.

IF someone does, electric cars will outperform fuel cars. No question.

All the work I've done with electric powered models shows one
conclusion, Give me three times the energy density and I can outperform
any IC engine on any parameter you care to pick. Except maybe gas
turbine jet engines.

The question is, will we stumble on a cheap simple way to make lithium
air work in the next 5 years, or will it take 50? Or will it ever happen
at all?

http://www.polyplus.com/liair.html

These boys claim they are close. Well they would say that wouldn't they?

BUT unusually for me, defending harry (because like any random monkey,
he has to be right once in a while), IF they do get a battery done, then
electric cars will sweep the board eventually. And electric aeroplanes
too. Remeber the claim is that the lithium air battery is as good as a
tank of kerosene. And an electric motor is no heavier for the same power
than a turboprop engine. And an hour on the apron recharging is no big
deal when you have to get the passengers and luggage off, and the next
lot on.

Every single thing we need to make an electric car is mature, cheap
known reliable technology.

Except the battery.

In the same way that every single thing we needed to make a computer was
available in WWII except the semiconductor. Once we had those computers
became eventually as cheap as..well chips!

I will admit the laser helped, but it wasn't fundamental. Neither were
LCD displays.

So if the likes of Polyplus, and the various far East companies fiddling
with material combinations in the lab hit pay dirt, harry is right.

If they don't, he is wrong.

You know I am utterly cynical about most 'green' technology,. because I
have examined it and found it all wanting.

Of ALL the technologies I have researched, only two stand out: ground
sourced heat pumps to utilise summer solar energy in winter, and
lithium air batteries.

Given nuclear generation capability, these two have the potential to
allow us to go beyond fossil fuels. At a similar standard of living and
lifestyle to now.

WE don't NEED the heat pumps, but they do help. But the lithium air
battery is the game changer. Without it we will be condemned to
synthesise hydrocarbon fuel, to get lightweight off-grid power. With it
we don't have to do that thing.

IF it works it will be to the 21st century what the internal combustion
engine was to the 20th.

IF it works.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2014 06:57, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
They have been reprocessing used fuel at Sellafield and other places for
many decades now. They extract plutonium and other radioactive isotopes
from used fuel rods and turn it into MOX fuel to be used in the 30
reactors that are currently using it in Europe, with another 20 licenced
to do so.

That's right. They separate usful fuel from the dross.
But the dross remains.
(The dross is what we are discussing)

Which could easily be disposed of, if the anti-nuclear lobby were not so
adamant that it not be stored within 8,000 miles of them. The dross, as
you call it, is much less radioactive and more easily stored than what
goes into the process, too.

But, as has been shown, you are so anti-nuclear that you refuse to read
anything positive about the nuclear industry, preferring to use energy
production methods that have been proven to increase greenhouse gas
production relative to burning coal as well as large amounts of chemical
and radioactive waste. However, as that waste is produced many thousands
of miles away from you, you seem not to care about it. I rather think that
if someone were to open a neodymium production facility near your home
that you might think differently.

Transatomic are a spinoff from MIT, who have a good reputation for doing
good engineering. Bill Gates also has a startup doing work on recycling
nuclear fuel. The only new thing about Transatomic is that their reactor
should be able to use old fuel rods directly. They're hoping to get
round
the current hysteria in the USA about reprocessing used fuel.

At least it will give predictable power 24/7.

The USA has reprocessing centres'
Similar to ours.
But nowhere to permanently store the dross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ge..._certain_sites


The lack of permanent storage is due to the hysteria being whipped up by
the anti-nuclear lobby. Many suitable sites have been identified, but
NIMBYism rules.


The lack of permanent storage arises be causes they don't even know if it's
possible yet.
Yet they still plough on down the road to nowhere.

On 21/01/2014 13:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/01/14 11:40, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:16:48 +0000
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No one has bothered to go for a speed record in an electric car.

Not totally true:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051252

but still a long way behind Andy Green.


That is essentially because yu run into severe limits using driven wheel
technology.

I cant remember the land speed record for cars driven by wheels, not jet
engines. But its in the 400mph range IIRC.

Oh thanks wiki. Yes Donald Campbell still holds that at 403mph in
Bluebird from 1964..

Not quite true. It's now 439 mph, in a twin V12 engined hot rod... It's
taken them half a century to gain 10%.

No reason why an electric car couldn't do that.

They're now at 3 times the speed they were at in 1899.

The limiting factor is the amount of kinetic energy you need to add
versus battery weight to do it.

If you towed te car up to a couple of hundred before kicking in the
leccy it should be easier :-)

Unforunately, that's not allowed within the rules. If you don't need to
carry batteries, the French have proved that quite high speeds are
possible on rails, but you need a few nuclear power stations to do it.

Would a turbine driving a generator count as electrically driven, I
wonder...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2014 07:00, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 09:25, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles could
see
the
advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power industry -
the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

--
Terry Fields


Unsafe and polluting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

What about the radioactive waste problem from wind turbines then
harry?
Every time you dig up neodinium to make the generators magnets, you
also
get waste pile of thorium...

Neodymium is used for all manner of things, from PM motors to colouring
glass to fertilizer.


And the thorium by product can be used in reactors to generate more
power
than the wind turbines ever will.

Ah yes, more pie-in-the-sky.
Tell me where they are.
Nuclear industry is full of "can bes" and "may bes".


India and China.

And Lala land?
There are no such beasts.
They have been built and abandoned as noneviable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium...ueled_reactors

.

The USA has reprocessing centres'
Similar to ours.
But nowhere to permanently store the dross.


Amazing to think that once the USA let a bomb off and managed to contain
that .. and all that area they have, places built into mountains and
those wide open spaces yet nowhere to put some reactor waste..

Seems rather difficult to believe somehow;!....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ge...situation_a t
_certain_sites



--
Tony Sayer