On 20/01/2014 09:28, harryagain wrote:

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

Perhaps you missed the news? Problem solved:

http://www.rjlg.com/wp-content/uploa...e-disposal.pdf

"Unknown to most, the United States has a successful operating deep
permanent geologic nuclear repository for high and low activity waste,
called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad"

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/01/2014 21:27, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
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.

So what do you propose doing with the thorium harry?


Dunno. I haven't thought about it.
It will all depends on the mining process and how the neodymium/thorium is
separated out.
But neodymium is not actually neccesary for wind turbines.

seems they use it though...

What about tellurium for the solar panels - same problem...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/01/2014 21:36, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:

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

Yup bolt on Mr Fusion - job done.

I have. The sun is fusion power.

Don't forget your flux capacitor


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/01/14 23:46, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/01/2014 20:51, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 07:05, harryagain wrote:

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.

You see, that's the problem. Not only is your memory selective (most
peoples are), but yours is usually proven to be wrong - you should stop
quoting stuff from memory.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/06/wo...oactive-theft/


Ah yes you're right.
This is the one where peple were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

That should reassure you then...

'Time magazine has identified the accident as one of the world's "worst
nuclear disasters" and the International Atomic Energy Agency called it
"one of the world's worst radiological incidents"'


And it was nothing to DO with nuclear power.

And the doses they got were...monumentally high.



For comparison, they died at around the 2 sievert level.

that's a dose that you might get hanging around fukushima or chernobyl
for the next 500 years....


Solar PV kills that number for every 5 TWh generated!

Wind is safer at only 3 times the death rate of nuclear.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...e-always-paid/





--
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.

..

One hour recahrage times are easy, and less can be achieved with a
powerful enough charger. The real bugaboo is simply battery energy
density and cost. Nickel and lead are hopeless, lithoium ion is barely
acceptable for short haul.

Only Li-air has a cats chance in hell. And it would do the job if we
knew how to make it.

All very interesting but one issue remains where is all this power going
to come from?.

Daily we look at Gridwatch to see what might be going off when it gets
to 55 odd GW so what's it going to be with all this extra demand even if
it is going to be overnight?..

Can the distribution system cope for one?..


Bit like windmills and solar power, really ... :-)

No, there is onme differemnce. Analysis shows soloar and wind will never
and CAN never work, at any sane cost and certaoinly not below teh cost
of nuclear.. BEVs COULD work. With LI-air But they are a hellofa way to
go yet to be competitive on levelised lifetime costs.

Or maybe someone will come up with a way to turn nuclear fissions
straight to electricity and make nuclear plants small enough, light
enough and cheap enough to go in the car.

Now that will change the world, we won't need that Middle eastern Oil
for a start.....

Renewable energy will not last as a fashion any longer than the hydrogen
economy, biofuels CFL lightbulbs and all the other eco crap. BUT the
high prices of fossil fuels wont go away, and we have to look towards a
nuclear electric society as the only long term solution.

We need to somehow make Li air batteries work, or we will all be going
everywhere by train..shudder..


Yes commuting .. what a 'orrible thought;(...

Arfa



--
Tony Sayer

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/14 10:55, tony sayer wrote:
In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
.

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;!....

Exactly so.
What the various prats thought was a simple solution in fact is no
solution
at all.
The bombs the USA letoff produced a widely dispersed cloud that
nevertheless
killed people.

Got any independent evidence for the trinity test anywhere?..

there is zero evidence that widespread rises in global background radiatin
killed anyine at all.

http://adst.org/2013/03/japanese-fis...-h-bomb-blast/



Bit of a difference between the immediate fallout of a very big
Thermonuclear ground burst test and global background radiation eh?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
On 22/01/2014 21:36, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:

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

Yup bolt on Mr Fusion - job done.

I have. The sun is fusion power.

Don't forget your flux capacitor



Indeed but that fusion reactor does have some very high transmission
losses;...

--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:12:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that is the point. Right now electric cars are hopeless, electric
aeroplanes are toys, but multiply battery capacity to weight by 4, and
cars work brilliantly.

Given that the battery pack in a Nissan Leaf is currently 300kg, that'll
just take the weight down to about 50% more than a full fuel tank - which
gives five or more times the range.

Give us 6 or better and aeroplanes really start to take off.

It's always helpful...

Recharge times? never more than an hour.

Sorry - can we just clarify this - you reckon you going to recharge a 5MWh
battery in one hour? Umm, how, exactly...? Multiplied by the traffic on a
summer weekend at a larger regional airfield?

As I said before this is the ONLY green idea that actually has a chance,
if they can knock out cheap safe lithium air batteries.

Boeing aren't exactly having much success as yet. And they're only tiddly
batteries. Even Elon Musk is quoted saying it's the wrong technology for
batteries on planes.

And overnight charging can only help - most commercial flights happen by
day, of the short haul sort.

We're talking about something like a Twin Otter. Not exactly the most
common size of commercial plane. A 787 has north of 300,000 litres of
fuel on board, rather than the 18,000 we've been talking about here. Care
to guesstimate the turn-around times? Or, indeed, the peak recharge
capacity that - say - Heathrow would need?

The lie is that you claim it needs to be geologically stable when in
reality if the waste is in glass form you could just dump it at sea and
it
would be safe.

You just need somewhere to store the hot stuff for a decade or three
before reprocessing it.

You are a simple minded git Dennis aren't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...gic_dispos al



More harry tripe, if its highly radioactive it has a short half life and
only needs storing for a short time.
The more active it is the shorter it is active for.
Its physics, simple physics even if it beyond you.


Drivel dennis drivel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioac...active_dec ay
You need to get yourself an education.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/01/2014 09:28, harryagain wrote:

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

Perhaps you missed the news? Problem solved:

http://www.rjlg.com/wp-content/uploa...e-disposal.pdf

"Unknown to most, the United States has a successful operating deep
permanent geologic nuclear repository for high and low activity waste,
called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad"

Yeah,right.
They haven't even started with the hjigh level stuff.
http://www.currentargus.com/ci_23631...quick-decision

You need to check your factoids out.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/14 21:30, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/01/2014 20:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

there is zero evidence that widespread rises in global background
radiatin
killed anyine at all.

http://adst.org/2013/03/japanese-fis...-h-bomb-blast/



You obviously didn't read the article. It's about direct exposure to
high level radiation from the blast, not global background rises.

Andy

and it didnt actually kill anyone either.

If you read it.

You mean if you read it.
Here it is again.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/14 21:30, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/01/2014 20:32, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

there is zero evidence that widespread rises in global background
radiatin
killed anyine at all.

http://adst.org/2013/03/japanese-fis...-h-bomb-blast/



You obviously didn't read the article. It's about direct exposure to
high level radiation from the blast, not global background rises.

Andy

and it didnt actually kill anyone either.

If you read it.

You mean ify ou read it.
Here it is again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_...n_contaminated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daigo_F...ontamin ation

On 23/01/14 08:25, tony sayer wrote:
.

One hour recahrage times are easy, and less can be achieved with a
powerful enough charger. The real bugaboo is simply battery energy
density and cost. Nickel and lead are hopeless, lithoium ion is barely
acceptable for short haul.

Only Li-air has a cats chance in hell. And it would do the job if we
knew how to make it.

All very interesting but one issue remains where is all this power going
to come from?.

Daily we look at Gridwatch to see what might be going off when it gets
to 55 odd GW so what's it going to be with all this extra demand even if
it is going to be overnight?..

Can the distribution system cope for one?..

Not the existing one, no.

I calculate a 3:1 upsized grid by say 2080 would run a nuclear electric
Britain of *approximately the same population as now*.

Its a difficult sum because although we have easy figures for the total
energy the country uses, we don't know at what efficiency it uses it.

But you can put a rough figure in the 30% or so used for transport, and
say that its about 350% efficient so represents 10% of the total in
terms of shaft power out. eccentricity use at the moment is around 30%
of all energy, so that would rise to 40%

So to do that with batteries is about 30% more grid needed and motre
generating capacity.

The rest is really heating. That is what would require the greatest grid
increases - all electric heating.




Bit like windmills and solar power, really ... :-)

No, there is onme differemnce. Analysis shows soloar and wind will never
and CAN never work, at any sane cost and certaoinly not below teh cost
of nuclear.. BEVs COULD work. With LI-air But they are a hellofa way to
go yet to be competitive on levelised lifetime costs.

Or maybe someone will come up with a way to turn nuclear fissions
straight to electricity and make nuclear plants small enough, light
enough and cheap enough to go in the car.

Now that will change the world, we won't need that Middle eastern Oil
for a start.....

yeah what ever happened to MHD?



Renewable energy will not last as a fashion any longer than the hydrogen
economy, biofuels CFL lightbulbs and all the other eco crap. BUT the
high prices of fossil fuels wont go away, and we have to look towards a
nuclear electric society as the only long term solution.

We need to somehow make Li air batteries work, or we will all be going
everywhere by train..shudder..



Yes commuting .. what a 'orrible thought;(...

I rather had it as staying at home, mostly, and commuting to virtual
workplaces via the internet....



Arfa





--
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.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 22/01/2014 20:18, harryagain wrote:

Because nobody knows how to construct something that will have to last
hundreds of thousands of years.
We might just about manage ten thousand years.
Some of the problems here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...logic_disposal



So you think that we need to store something that wont exist in a couple
of hundred years for hundreds of thousands of years, just how exactly are
you going to stop it decaying?

You're pretty thick Dennis.
Can't you find out anything for yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...ent_of_wast e

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

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

The other problem is the waste arising from bomb manufacture.
Which is still undisposed of and stored away, costing the taxpayer
money.
Part of the cost of nuclear power not mentioned.

Y'see harry, this is why you are widely considered to be a fathead and
a fraud.

In sentence 1, you mention waste arising from bomb manufacture. Fair
enough.

In sentence 2, you say it's undisposed of. True, AFAIK.

In sentence 3, this bomb waste is suddenly the fault of nuclear power,
when it is in fact unrelated.

Nuclear power only arose out of nuclear reactors constructed to make
nuclear bombs ****-fer-brains.

That may have been true once (although I suspect the reactors for bombs
and power are different) but won't have been true for 50 years. So more
cock from harry as usual.


The nuclear waste from the bombs is still around after 50 years.
And still costing the taxpayer money.
And will continue to do so.

Which means that it is a hard problem to solve.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2014 20:38, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 06:57, harryagain wrote:
"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)

Actually its not. What you think of of waste, is "spent" fuel. That
still
in reality has most of its fuel remaining. Liquid salt reactors will not
encounter the problem in the first place since the fuel cycle is a
continuous process. (and before you claim this is "pie in the sky"
consider that the oak ridge reactor ran sucessfully for many years, and
that the Chinese are building at least 5 new ones as we speak).

Pie in the sky again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_...hinese_project
Decades away.

"The proposed completion date for a test 2 MW pebble-bed solid thorium and
molten salt cooled reactor has been delayed from 2015 to 2017"

Given its 2014 you might want to look up "decades" in a dictionary.


The toy one. Experimental.
At this stage they may likely come to the same conclusion as the USA, UK and
Germans that it is not viable

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/2014 21:14, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 22/01/2014 10:26, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
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.


The point is that neodymium enables very efficient motors/generators to
be
made.
Magnetic losses are much reduced.

Not by neodymium, they're not. They are reduced by better alloys of
steel
in the rotors and stators. Magnetic losses are wholly caused by
hysteresis
effects on the alternating magnetic fields flowing in the stator and
rotor
of electrical machinery.

It is not a thing vitally neccessary for, or peculiar to, wind
turebines.
They could be made using ordinary generators.
Neodymium permanent magnet motors/aternators are used in electric cars
because of the limited battery capacity.

As sensibly sized electric motors and generators (Those above about 500
watts) have had electrical efficiencies in the high 90% range since I
was
at school in the 1960s, using either normal permanent magnets or wound
fields, I fail to see how neodymium magnets can "greatly improve"
efficiencies. What they *can* do is let motors and generators be
physically smaller, and so lighter, which only matters in locatins where
the vehicle being driven is constantly accelerating and decelerating.
Even
so, it's only a 2% change at most.

They are used elsewhere due to the anticipated rise in the cost of
electricity.
You can buy a central heating circ.pump with a neodymium motor.
We discussed it earlier and doubt was raised as to the economics.

Which raises doubts as to just how much more efficient they actually are
than the old one with 80% efficiency. Any savings of energy are more
likely to be due to better control, which could be used on any motor of
that type.


There are savings are in copper losses as there is no "electro magnet"
or
squirrel cage rotor with conductors.
Also as they are synchronous motors there is reduced iron losses as the
magnetic field in the rotor is unvarying.

It just varies more in the stator. So what were rotor losses happen in the
stator instead.

In any case, even if the new motor is 100% efficient, it is still only a
marginal saving over current designs, which have been well over 80%
efficient for decades.

Also the design is much simpler, no squirrel cage rotor has to be made.

When you're making a multipole stator to get a sensible speed out of a
synchronous motor, fabricating a squirrel cage is trivial by comparison.
Two drilled rings and a handful of rods, brazed or welded together in a
simple jig.

Most motors are small motors and much less efficient, more like 75%.
Very small ones, around 50%

Nevertheless it is being done. World wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency

On 23/01/2014 10:57, harryagain wrote:
The nuclear waste from the bombs is still around after 50 years.
And still costing the taxpayer money.
And will continue to do so.

Which means that it is a hard problem to solve.


Only because the NIMBYs have uswed FUD to convince the politicians to
oppose the many sensible proposals made.

It could be used to fuel power generating reactors, or it could be
safely stored until another use for it is found, or it could just be put
into one of the many suitable sites that have been identified and
ignored thereafter.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2014 21:27, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
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.

So what do you propose doing with the thorium harry?


Dunno. I haven't thought about it.
It will all depends on the mining process and how the neodymium/thorium
is
separated out.
But neodymium is not actually neccesary for wind turbines.

seems they use it though...

What about tellurium for the solar panels - same problem...

What about Gallium in semi-conductors?
All mining causes pollution.
Some is exceptionally polluting.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
On 22/01/2014 21:36, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 07:17, harryagain wrote:

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

Yup bolt on Mr Fusion - job done.

I have. The sun is fusion power.

Don't forget your flux capacitor



Indeed but that fusion reactor does have some very high transmission
losses;...


Well we need some for weather.
The PV panels are around 12% efficient.

On 23/01/14 08:48, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:12:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that is the point. Right now electric cars are hopeless, electric
aeroplanes are toys, but multiply battery capacity to weight by 4, and
cars work brilliantly.

Given that the battery pack in a Nissan Leaf is currently 300kg, that'll
just take the weight down to about 50% more than a full fuel tank - which
gives five or more times the range.

Give us 6 or better and aeroplanes really start to take off.

It's always helpful...

Recharge times? never more than an hour.

Sorry - can we just clarify this - you reckon you going to recharge a 5MWh
battery in one hour? Umm, how, exactly...? Multiplied by the traffic on a
summer weekend at a larger regional airfield?

As I said before this is the ONLY green idea that actually has a chance,
if they can knock out cheap safe lithium air batteries.

Boeing aren't exactly having much success as yet. And they're only tiddly
batteries. Even Elon Musk is quoted saying it's the wrong technology for
batteries on planes.

And overnight charging can only help - most commercial flights happen by
day, of the short haul sort.

We're talking about something like a Twin Otter. Not exactly the most
common size of commercial plane. A 787 has north of 300,000 litres of
fuel on board, rather than the 18,000 we've been talking about here. Care
to guesstimate the turn-around times? Or, indeed, the peak recharge
capacity that - say - Heathrow would need?

I had only just got around to a ducted fan design for a 787

300,000 litres would be around hmm 100,000 x 10Kwh, so a GWh or so. 160
tonnes of battery.

No reason not to recharge that in an hour, or have a whole airport full
of the things plugged in on a 10 hour overnight charge.

Not allowed to take off at night anyway. Mind you electric ducted fans
could be a lot quieter than the existing turbofans....

But I don't think it is any more insane than a century ago saying 'its
all very well, but to use cars we are going to need petrol stations
everywhere, and pipes and lorries to supply them'.. or 200 years ago
saying 'all these steam engines are all very well, but to make it work
you are going to need a network of railways covering the country to
deliver all that coal'...

For example, Stansted is near to Sizewell. You start with electrifying
that, and a few planes travelling to near locations - small planes.
Paris maybe.

It then just happens organically as bit by bit the economics of electric
planes beat those of fuel planes. Or not.

NO need for governments to get involved to dictate anything at all. Any
more than they did with cars and planes.

Research is going on into the batteries, because other engineers have
done the same calculations and know that if they can make such
batteries, safely, and cheaply, it's a total game changer into a
non-fossil world.

There are two ways to deal with 'beyond fossil' - the first is to simply
have no transport beyond electric trains, short range electric vehicles
and nuclear ships, at all, and do EVERYTHING else over the internet.
Like the boys sitting in England driving drones over Afghanistan.
Advanced robotics means you don't need to be there..any niche
applications would use synthesised hydrocarbon fuel at enormous expense.


The second way is to come up with a light portable secondary energy
storage system that is as good (safety, cost) as hydrocarbon fuel in
terms of energy density.

Those are the only two options as I see it. Very little transport at
all, plus synfuel. Or lithium air batteries. May the cheapest one win.


Until recently I didn't think the second was even theoretically
possible. Now I think it is, but its still decades away. But we have
decades of fossil fuel left so its all pretty much on target.

Where that puts us 50 years on is a massively internetted nuclear
electric powered society with what transport we cannot eliminate being
electric trains, and short haul cars and trucks acting as 'last 50
miles' vehicles, and almost no air transport at all, or battery cars and
planes.

To be honest, the lesser of the two evils in terms of changing the
underlying infrastructure and lifestyle would be if the batteries worked.

In the shorter term, they wont, and cost efficiency will drive us to use
the internet to replace physical travel wherever possible. WE are
already the leading nation on internet shopping, and there are a lot of
'distributed companies' springing up as VPN technology makes it
relatively OK to run a company from a series of spare bedrooms.

The only thing government needs to do right now is stop wasting all our
money on renewable energy. And make it a lot easier cheaper and quicker
to build nukes.

Consideration of the actual materials that go into a nuke and what they
consist of suggests they are 3 or 4 times more expensive than they need
to be, simply because of the massive amounts of consultation and
consultants that are required to ensure they meet the box ticking agenda
of the anti-nuclear bureaucrats.

Small modular reactors that are factory built and shipped could mean
type approval for a design, and mass production of the critical bits.

In Russia they have some towns in Siberia whose heating and electricity
needs are net - more cheaply than in any other way - by small nukes that
circulate heating water to all the town as well as electricity.
Given that our national energy needs are about 2:1 heating:everything
else, there is scope for 'nuke in every town, and free hot water' to
happen here as well.

Once the public acceptance barrier is overcome.

I wonder how much cooling the Cam could do in summer...;-)

Enough for half a gigawatt perhaps?



--
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 23/01/2014 11:11, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
When you're making a multipole stator to get a sensible speed out of a
synchronous motor, fabricating a squirrel cage is trivial by comparison.
Two drilled rings and a handful of rods, brazed or welded together in a
simple jig.

Most motors are small motors and much less efficient, more like 75%.
Very small ones, around 50%


What do you define as a small motor. To some plant designers, a small
motor is 500 horsepower. Fractional horsepower motors (200 - 500 2watts)
are still over 80%, and it's only in places like Hard Drives that the
efficiency drops, although in the case of laptop drives, the motor
efficiency needs to be higher than in desktop computers.

So, in the case of the latest central heating pumps, the *maximum*
saving in electrical consumption is about 100 watts for a system energy
consumption of up to 24,000 watts. With the waste heat from the motor
helping reduce the amount of primary fuel used on site, so the net
effect is to replace 100 watts of gas heat with 100 watts of electrical
heating.

The motors you quote as having efficiencies of 50% are only found in
toys and small servo mechanisms, so the energy savings are even lower.
My model locomotive would use 3 watts instead of 6. As it is now, if
it's the only thing running, the model railway doesn't even register on
the meter, so I'd say that was not in any way worth while. There are
other reasons to increase motor efficiency in models, though, and a
doubling of efficiency in an aeroplane motor would double the available
flight time, assuming the new motor and its control gear is no heavier
than the old one.

Nevertheless it is being done. World wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency

Which, if you bother reading the tables, shows that the new standards
are already reached by most if not all motors sold now.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/01/2014 11:01, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2014 20:38, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 06:57, harryagain wrote:
"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)

Actually its not. What you think of of waste, is "spent" fuel. That
still
in reality has most of its fuel remaining. Liquid salt reactors will not
encounter the problem in the first place since the fuel cycle is a
continuous process. (and before you claim this is "pie in the sky"
consider that the oak ridge reactor ran sucessfully for many years, and
that the Chinese are building at least 5 new ones as we speak).

Pie in the sky again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_...hinese_project
Decades away.

"The proposed completion date for a test 2 MW pebble-bed solid thorium and
molten salt cooled reactor has been delayed from 2015 to 2017"

Given its 2014 you might want to look up "decades" in a dictionary.


The toy one. Experimental.
At this stage they may likely come to the same conclusion as the USA, UK and
Germans that it is not viable

The US knows its viable - they ran one for years. They closed it in
preference for U based reactors because there was no weapons spin off
from the Th based one, and ICBMs had made the original USAF requirement
for a nuclear powered bomber redundant. It was simply a decision about
how best to direct limited resources into developments that would yield
power and weapons grade fissile material.

Who gives a toss what the Germans think, they are still living in cloud
cookoo land thinking they can cope without their nuclear plant, as they
buy ever more nuclear generated electricity from France, and scrabble to
get more coal plant into action to compensate for their folly.

As for the UK, you have to wonder at the logic of some of our greeny
friends... now what was the quote from George Monbiot about conversation
with Caroline Lucas:

"Last week I argued about these issues with Caroline Lucas. She is one
of my heroes, and the best thing to have happened to parliament since
time immemorial. But this doesn't mean that she can't be wildly
illogical when she chooses. When I raised the issue of the feed-in
tariff, she pointed out that the difference between subsidising nuclear
power and subsidising solar power is that nuclear is a mature technology
and solar is not. In that case, I asked, would she support research into
thorium reactors, which could provide a much safer and cheaper means of
producing nuclear power? No, she told me, because thorium reactors are
not a proven technology. Words fail me."


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:32:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

300,000 litres would be around hmm 100,000 x 10Kwh, so a GWh or so. 160
tonnes of battery.

No reason not to recharge that in an hour, or have a whole airport full
of the things plugged in on a 10 hour overnight charge.

I can think of quite a few good reasons, tbh.

Not least of which is that the current total National Grid consumption is
less than 50Kwh. For the entire country. And we're already starting to
question whether _that_ demand can be met.

For example, Stansted is near to Sizewell. You start with electrifying
that, and a few planes travelling to near locations - small planes.
Paris maybe.

So these electric airliners can only be used for Stansted as their UK
destination...?

Sizewell A can only half-meet this one hour charging for an airliner.
Together with Sizewell B, they're a bit shy of two planes at any given
time. Let's say 48 planes per day can be charged by Sizewell A + B.
That's less than a quarter of Stansted's total. Stansted isn't even a
very big airport.

On 23/01/14 11:38, John Williamson wrote:
On 23/01/2014 11:11, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
When you're making a multipole stator to get a sensible speed out of a
synchronous motor, fabricating a squirrel cage is trivial by comparison.
Two drilled rings and a handful of rods, brazed or welded together in a
simple jig.

Most motors are small motors and much less efficient, more like 75%.
Very small ones, around 50%


What do you define as a small motor. To some plant designers, a small
motor is 500 horsepower. Fractional horsepower motors (200 - 500 2watts)
are still over 80%, and it's only in places like Hard Drives that the
efficiency drops, although in the case of laptop drives, the motor
efficiency needs to be higher than in desktop computers.


well I can point to to a 50W motor doing well over 90% efficiency.


It will cost you a bit more than a cheap ferrite can motor dong 75% of
course.

Haryu is of course talking ******** as usdual. There is no technical
reason for a small motor to be any more or less efficient than a large
one. Its just that the value of efficiency in a motor to drive a
toothbrush is very low, whereas the value of efficiency in one driving a
train is rather larger.


So, in the case of the latest central heating pumps, the *maximum*
saving in electrical consumption is about 100 watts for a system energy
consumption of up to 24,000 watts. With the waste heat from the motor
helping reduce the amount of primary fuel used on site, so the net
effect is to replace 100 watts of gas heat with 100 watts of electrical
heating.

The motors you quote as having efficiencies of 50% are only found in
toys and small servo mechanisms, so the energy savings are even lower.

Its very hard to get even those below 50%.

I think the worst model aeroplane motor I own, if driven without gears
into a highly unsuitable propellor will dip below 50%. on the right
battery and geared and not trying to extract the ultimate from a package
that isn't capable of it, I can easily get 65%-70%. That's on a brushed
motor with ferrite magnets that cost a couple of quid.

IF I want to go neodymium and brushless, then there are motors that will
top 90%. Naturally they cost more like £50.

Electric motor efficiency is NOT a constant. As current rises magnetic
losses tend to scale with the current, but resistive losses go up as the
square. So low current high RPM is the most efficient, until you get
into rising hysteresis losses and frictional losses. hysteresis means
using better , friction means using ball races instead of plain
bearings. This costs money, and high RPM means using a gearbox.

At some point on the various curves is the optimal point. I ran my 6V
motors on 12v, or even 14v, and geared them to draw less current than
the normally assumed maximum. They ran cool and delivered MORE power
than they did at 6V.

Best of all, they were more efficient the less current they drew, so
cruising around at half throttle netted me enormously long flight times.



My model locomotive would use 3 watts instead of 6. As it is now, if
it's the only thing running, the model railway doesn't even register on
the meter, so I'd say that was not in any way worth while. There are
other reasons to increase motor efficiency in models, though, and a
doubling of efficiency in an aeroplane motor would double the available
flight time, assuming the new motor and its control gear is no heavier
than the old one.


yes. But its hard to double a 60% efficient motor!

By and large the more efficient motors simply end up being more powerful
for a smaller package..with eejits driving them to the bleeding edge
just the same.

There's a lovely bit of physics that says that as a motor gets hotter,
its resistance rises, and that makes it get even hotter, and then as the
magnets get too hot, it draws even MORE current as it want to speed up
to create the same back EMF, so it gets even hotter still...it can
happen in seconds as the idiots ducted fan jet emits a tail of smoke and
stops as the controller blows up. If you are very lucky the battery then
catches fire and the radio control is lost as well.




Nevertheless it is being done. World wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency

Which, if you bother reading the tables, shows that the new standards
are already reached by most if not all motors sold now.


Exactly. If you want efficiency design for it. Costs a wee bit more,
that's all. If electricity is expensive, then the cost repays itself. If
it isn't, its not worth doing.





--
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 23/01/2014 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/01/14 08:48, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:12:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that is the point. Right now electric cars are hopeless, electric
aeroplanes are toys, but multiply battery capacity to weight by 4, and
cars work brilliantly.

Given that the battery pack in a Nissan Leaf is currently 300kg, that'll
just take the weight down to about 50% more than a full fuel tank - which
gives five or more times the range.

Give us 6 or better and aeroplanes really start to take off.

It's always helpful...

Recharge times? never more than an hour.

Sorry - can we just clarify this - you reckon you going to recharge a
5MWh
battery in one hour? Umm, how, exactly...? Multiplied by the traffic on a
summer weekend at a larger regional airfield?

As I said before this is the ONLY green idea that actually has a chance,
if they can knock out cheap safe lithium air batteries.

Boeing aren't exactly having much success as yet. And they're only tiddly
batteries. Even Elon Musk is quoted saying it's the wrong technology for
batteries on planes.

And overnight charging can only help - most commercial flights happen by
day, of the short haul sort.

We're talking about something like a Twin Otter. Not exactly the most
common size of commercial plane. A 787 has north of 300,000 litres of
fuel on board, rather than the 18,000 we've been talking about here. Care
to guesstimate the turn-around times? Or, indeed, the peak recharge
capacity that - say - Heathrow would need?

I had only just got around to a ducted fan design for a 787

300,000 litres would be around hmm 100,000 x 10Kwh, so a GWh or so. 160
tonnes of battery.

No reason not to recharge that in an hour, or have a whole airport full
of the things plugged in on a 10 hour overnight charge.

Given the incentive, they could all use standard battery packs, and they
could be swapped as quickly as they currently swap freight containers.
so the plane would only need to hang about as long as it does now, using
multiple battery packs on charge at all times.

Also, when using electrical power, it may pay to look at the old
propeller driven planes, as a lot of the trade offs that make jets
currently the most efficient means of flying may become invalid. Didn't
someone write on this group not long ago that it's only recent
improvements in battery technolgy that have made electric ducted fans
possible for models?

The total energy needed for an airport is the problem. Heathrow, for
instance, needs a two foot diameter pipeline just to supply fuel to one
terminal's fuelling points. I'm having trouble finding details, but I
suspect that the pipeline from Buncefield to Luton is about the same
diameter. A Boeing 737 travelling to Paris uses about 3.5 tonnes of fuel
at roughly 27 megajoules per kilogramme. So one short flight would need
something like the entire output of Sizewell for many minutes, and that
assumes that the battery is no heavier than the fuel load, as most
getting the weight up to cruising height requires a *lot* of energy, it
takes roughly 1200 kg of fuel for a 737-400 to get to cruising height,
then it's about 3000kg per hour cruising, and 300 kg while dropping from
cruising height to landing. The current average flight requency for
Luton is roughly one flight departure every twenty minutes, averaged
over 24 hours. So, you'd need rather more power than one Sizewell B to
run it, according to my envelope. Heathrow would need more than 25 times
that amount of energy. at current traffic levels.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wonder how much cooling the Cam could do in summer...;-)

Enough for half a gigawatt perhaps?




A few years back I went boating in March (Tubing, they lied about how
fast they wouldn't go.) in an Illinois lake used for reactor cooling.
The lake was fed by two rivers which had a dam built to create the lake.
The water temperature was around 80F, just like a warm bath! You could
fish there as well as play with boats and water ski. However I didn't
see anybody eating the fish! I think the Cam would boil.

On 23/01/14 11:54, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:32:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

300,000 litres would be around hmm 100,000 x 10Kwh, so a GWh or so. 160
tonnes of battery.

No reason not to recharge that in an hour, or have a whole airport full
of the things plugged in on a 10 hour overnight charge.

I can think of quite a few good reasons, tbh.

Not least of which is that the current total National Grid consumption is
less than 50Kwh.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The national grid
is capable of delivering well over 50GW, and IIRC the rated capacity of
reliable stuff (excluding wind and solar and other rubbish) is well over
70GW.

50Kwh is a measure of energy not power. And the national grid delivers
that in less than a second.


For the entire country. And we're already starting to
question whether _that_ demand can be met.

For example, Stansted is near to Sizewell. You start with electrifying
that, and a few planes travelling to near locations - small planes.
Paris maybe.

So these electric airliners can only be used for Stansted as their UK
destination...?


Dont be silly: That's a starting point, the most likely place to first
try it out.

Sizewell A can only half-meet this one hour charging for an airliner.

Sizewll A is decommissioned. It cant meet anything at all.


Together with Sizewell B, they're a bit shy of two planes at any given
time. Let's say 48 planes per day can be charged by Sizewell A + B.
That's less than a quarter of Stansted's total. Stansted isn't even a
very big airport.


No, it can fully meet it. Sizewell B is a 1.2GW power plant and Sizewell
C is slated to be 3.6GW.


And that will be rather a lot of power. Biggest power station in the
country, able to do about 40 planes a night easily if they were doing that.

I never said we could do all this NOW, the point is that it could be
done in future.

Neither would electric planes be 'here today' with fuel planes 'gone'

Its a development process. Small ones first, then larger ones, with grid
upgrades and power stations being added to meet the need.

All this is predicated on the basic assumption that the price of fossil
fuel will inexorably rise until its more expensive than some alternative.

The alternative might be that no one flies at all. And instead takes a
train.

Or it might be that electric planes represent in the end a more cost
effective and fuel efficient and cheaper solution than trains.

I don't know. But what I do know is that the next cheapest alternative
to fossil fuel for primary energy is nuclear power, and that without
government interference, that is what we will have left - all we will
have left - in 50-100 years time.

(If we even exist as a a post industrial nation at all, and the greens
don't succeed in turning the clock back to the 13th century, and killing
95% of the population.)

It is easy to calculate the gross energy consumption of Britain now, and
I think I did it once and came to about 300GW average over a year.

So that's 100 sizewell Cs. In fact less, because a LOT of energy is
wasted in fuel engines that run at the sort of 30% efficiency level
whereas wires electric motors and batteries are up in the high 80s - all
the wastage is in the power station instead turning hot uranium into
steam..and we don't measure that when we measure a power stations OUTPUT.

Let's say we might need 200GW and a grid to handle it. To replace all
the gas pipes and oil tankers and the like. That is probably in today's
prices about £600bn for the nukes and £60bn to upgrade the grid. wet
finger stuff, spread out over 50 years or so.

Less than £15bn a year. Remind me what we are currently spending on
offshore wind and solar panels?


And a LOT of that is simply redeploying expenditure from - say - new
oil tankers, to new bits of grid. Or from new wind turbines to new
nuclear build.

Intrinsically it is all possible, over a 50 year span, IF the government
and the greens STFU and let the market dictate what is worth investing
in, instead of being told what to build.

Frankly if Heathrow and Stansted need a big nuke each just to keep
planes flying, build them. There's plenty of cooling water in the Thames
for Heathrow, and plenty of houses around there that would love to have
free hot water.

Stansted is not so well blessed with cooling, which is why an expanded
Sizewell or a Thames estuary nuke array that could supply London as well
is more practical.

Not only is the final target achievable, but there is a natural upgrade
route that doesn't require vast sums of money all at once.

Unlike Germany's energiewiende, which is spending as lot more than that
creating a monster that doesn't work, we could do it the RIGHT way, and
embark on a 50 year steady expansion of the grid, and building nuclear
power plants at around 3 per year, to get to a non fossil society in
around 50 years, that would have long term sustainability for 2000 years
or so with current population levels and current standards of living.

Beyond that, is of course fusion power..

AS I said, its feasible both technically and cost wise to do that. I've
spent a long time running the numbers. The biggest unknown is portable
secondary energy storage.

And the biggest obstacle is the anti-technology greens.


--
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 23/01/14 12:01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

The lie is that you claim it needs to be geologically stable when in
reality if the waste is in glass form you could just dump it at
sea and it
would be safe.

You just need somewhere to store the hot stuff for a decade or three
before reprocessing it.

You are a simple minded git Dennis aren't you?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...agement#Geolog

ic_disposal

More harry tripe, if its highly radioactive it has a short half life
and only needs storing for a short time.
The more active it is the shorter it is active for.
Its physics, simple physics even if it beyond you.

Drivel dennis drivel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioac...radioactive_de

cay
You need to get yourself an education.

Bad luck harry; you are wrong on this one (why am I not surprised?).
The shorter the half-life of an isotope, the more radioactive it is.

by definition.


--
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 23/01/14 12:28, John Williamson wrote:
On 23/01/2014 11:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/01/14 08:48, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:12:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And that is the point. Right now electric cars are hopeless, electric
aeroplanes are toys, but multiply battery capacity to weight by 4, and
cars work brilliantly.

Given that the battery pack in a Nissan Leaf is currently 300kg, that'll
just take the weight down to about 50% more than a full fuel tank -
which
gives five or more times the range.

Give us 6 or better and aeroplanes really start to take off.

It's always helpful...

Recharge times? never more than an hour.

Sorry - can we just clarify this - you reckon you going to recharge a
5MWh
battery in one hour? Umm, how, exactly...? Multiplied by the traffic
on a
summer weekend at a larger regional airfield?

As I said before this is the ONLY green idea that actually has a
chance,
if they can knock out cheap safe lithium air batteries.

Boeing aren't exactly having much success as yet. And they're only
tiddly
batteries. Even Elon Musk is quoted saying it's the wrong technology for
batteries on planes.

And overnight charging can only help - most commercial flights
happen by
day, of the short haul sort.

We're talking about something like a Twin Otter. Not exactly the most
common size of commercial plane. A 787 has north of 300,000 litres of
fuel on board, rather than the 18,000 we've been talking about here.
Care
to guesstimate the turn-around times? Or, indeed, the peak recharge
capacity that - say - Heathrow would need?

I had only just got around to a ducted fan design for a 787

300,000 litres would be around hmm 100,000 x 10Kwh, so a GWh or so. 160
tonnes of battery.

No reason not to recharge that in an hour, or have a whole airport full
of the things plugged in on a 10 hour overnight charge.

Given the incentive, they could all use standard battery packs, and they
could be swapped as quickly as they currently swap freight containers.
so the plane would only need to hang about as long as it does now, using
multiple battery packs on charge at all times.

Also, when using electrical power, it may pay to look at the old
propeller driven planes, as a lot of the trade offs that make jets
currently the most efficient means of flying may become invalid. Didn't
someone write on this group not long ago that it's only recent
improvements in battery technolgy that have made electric ducted fans
possible for models?


Well I have been looking into that very fact.

Propellors work well up to around 250-300mph. Beyond that the problems
of tip vortices getting into transonic regimes make them not so good.
I.e. the fastest propellor aircraft were at the end of WWII pushing the
500mph mark but they were alarmingly inefficient at that.

Ducted fans can control the tip vortices better, and by careful duct
shaping can render it possible to slow the incoming airstream below
aircraft speed and get thrust up to the 500mph mark somewhat better.

I have also been informed that current turbofan engines are designed to
deal with transonic airflow across the blades too.


The economics of jet aircraft are largely good because shorter journey
times means more passenger miles per aeroplane per year. And that
leverages the cost of borrowing the money. And the advantages of gas
turbines over petrol engines was simply lower maintenance. Electric
motors should be 'routine maintenance free' - that is apart from the
bearings, there is nothing to wear out at all.

as fuel costs rise, economics shift a little towards lower speeds and
better fuel efficiency. turbofans fly high, because there is less air
resistance up there, propellor aircraft are more suited to lower speeds
at lower altitudes so are standard for the sort of 100-300 mile flights.
And as they are lower speed aircraft, can use shorter runaways too.

(there is a formula to do with drag and power and all sorts of stuff
that more or less says the best speed to fly a plane at is 1.5 - 2.5
times stall speed, so a 747 flying at 500mph has to take off at getting
on to 200mph plus. Even with all the flaps and stuff. A 300mph turboprop
need only take off at 120mph or so. And that means less runway: variable
pitch propellors are also very good at low speed thrust as well, so they
accelerate better from a standing start)



The total energy needed for an airport is the problem. Heathrow, for
instance, needs a two foot diameter pipeline just to supply fuel to one
terminal's fuelling points. I'm having trouble finding details, but I
suspect that the pipeline from Buncefield to Luton is about the same
diameter. A Boeing 737 travelling to Paris uses about 3.5 tonnes of fuel
at roughly 27 megajoules per kilogramme. So one short flight would need
something like the entire output of Sizewell for many minutes, and that
assumes that the battery is no heavier than the fuel load, as most
getting the weight up to cruising height requires a *lot* of energy, it
takes roughly 1200 kg of fuel for a 737-400 to get to cruising height,
then it's about 3000kg per hour cruising, and 300 kg while dropping from
cruising height to landing. The current average flight requency for
Luton is roughly one flight departure every twenty minutes, averaged
over 24 hours. So, you'd need rather more power than one Sizewell B to
run it, according to my envelope. Heathrow would need more than 25 times
that amount of energy. at current traffic levels.


You have missed the fact that the heat engine loss of 70% thermal has
already taken place at Sizewell..i,e, Sizewell B is a 3.6GWt power
station of which 1.2GWe comes out as electricity.

So you need about one third of the energy electricity wise as is in
existing fuel.


But you are right that it is a MASSIVE amount of energy to fly planes
round the world to climate conferences and to Brussels for the EU, and
the like...;-)

BUT if an airport needs a nuke to run it, so what?

HS2 is costing the equivalent of at least 8GW of nuclear power - more
than we have at the moment in total.

A third runway at Heathrow would cost an estimated £5-7bn, which would
net you a 1GW nuke easily, even at today's inflated prices.

But as I said, Rome was not built in a day. The reality is that today
an electric plane is a rich man's toy, that will just about carry him
for an hour of pottering about.

Very much as an aeroplane or motor car was around 1910.

It took 50 years for both to be 'part of normal life' 'something anyone
can afford to use'

And I predict similar timescales for electric cars and aeroplanes, and
the nuclear power stations to drive them.

Unlike greens and their outlandish claims that not only is their
ridiculous fantasy future mandatory on moral grounds, and must be built
in a decade, I am more realistic, it is mandatory on sheer resource and
cost grounds, but it doesn't have to be built in a decade. There is
enough reasonably accessible fossil fuel to tide us over for the next 50
years while we get on and start building its replacement.

I am not advocating electric cars and planes right now, merely showing
that, given the right battery that is PHYSICALLY possible, but not yet
an engineering reality by any stretch of the imagination, one shouldn't
discount the *possibility* of either, and consider at zero cost to the
nation right now, the implications of their deployment.

You are right to raise the numbers, it is an issue, and a serious issue,
but it is not a show stopper.

And the correct starting points are to cease building renewable energy,
which is always far more expensive overall than nuclear, and get
building that instead, and to pour small sums of money (millions, not
billions) into lithium air battery *research*, until its at the stage
where it is commercially interesting. Or not, if it never makes it.

And keep uprating the grid to handle the larger flows that a transition
to electrical power rather than fuel will involve, be it trains, cars
planes, electric central heating or whatever.

National grid probably needs to retain at least 30% of its profits each
year to deploy in investment in more grid. And should be encouraged to
do so.







--
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 23/01/14 12:57, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wonder how much cooling the Cam could do in summer...;-)

Enough for half a gigawatt perhaps?




A few years back I went boating in March (Tubing, they lied about
how fast they wouldn't go.) in an Illinois lake used for reactor
cooling. The lake was fed by two rivers which had a dam built to create
the lake. The water temperature was around 80F, just like a warm bath!
You could fish there as well as play with boats and water ski. However I
didn't see anybody eating the fish! I think the Cam would boil.


Its a simple enough calculation. Those illinois plants are IIRC bloody
HUGE..


It would seem to be the Clinton plant you are talking about which dumps
about 2GW thermal into the lakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...rating_Station

Cambridge wouldn't need that much to run it ;-)

worst case flow at Jesus lock is 1 cu m a second and it average
generally better than 2 in June, so if we take 2cu m/s as a figure and
allow say a 20C rise..

http://www.firstandthird.org/frames/...camwater.shtml

that is 40 x 10^6 calories a second or 160MW ...so theoretically able to
cool a 80MWe reactor reasonably well, even in June, if it were throttled
back a bit (they do that in France in summer to avoid overheating the
rivers)


IIRC Cambridge and its environs is about 100,000 inhabitants so that's
1.6KW apiece..and free hot water in the town centre too. What's not to
like? And warm outdoor swimming pools all year round!

Of course skating on the CAM would be a thing of the past,. but you
could farm trout downstream.

It's a fun exercise.. and does show what even a small river can absorb
in terms of cooling. And small modular reactors of that sort of power
output are definitely being constructed right now.



--
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.

Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wonder how much cooling the Cam could do in summer...;-)

Enough for half a gigawatt perhaps?




A few years back I went boating in March (Tubing, they lied about how
fast they wouldn't go.) in an Illinois lake used for reactor cooling.
The lake was fed by two rivers which had a dam built to create the lake.
The water temperature was around 80F, just like a warm bath! You could
fish there as well as play with boats and water ski. However I didn't
see anybody eating the fish! I think the Cam would boil.

Seems to have been Clinton Il.

On 21/01/2014 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/01/14 09:33, Nightjar wrote:
....
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.

Where I would expect to see it first is in military vehicles. The
logistical advantages of never needing to refuel would justify spending
lots of money on the development. I still want a nuclear powered car though.

Colin Bignell

On 23/01/14 14:17, Nightjar wrote:
On 21/01/2014 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/01/14 09:33, Nightjar wrote:
...
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.

Where I would expect to see it first is in military vehicles. The
logistical advantages of never needing to refuel would justify spending
lots of money on the development. I still want a nuclear powered car
though.

Umm. the problem with that is cooling pure and simple, shielding and
weight.

Its not hard to make a 20-50,000 bhp reactor. But air cooling it is non
trivial.

And it still needs a lot of shielding if you are going to sit next to it
all day.

And you need some way to turn the heat into mechanical energy.

Gas cooled driving a gas turbine with massive coolers on the back perhaps.




Colin Bignell



--
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 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:58:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not least of which is that the current total National Grid consumption
is less than 50Kwh.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, arse. Yes, you're right. Giga. Kilo. Mega. It's a subtle difference
between friends.

The alternative might be that no one flies at all. And instead takes a
train.

Hmm. Short-haul, it's viable. City centre to city-centre, it's actually
quicker from London to Paris or Edinburgh or wherever. But it starts to
struggle a bit if you want to go to Stockholm or Moscow or LA or Tokyo or
Sydney. Even, in many countries, for domestic trips.

And the biggest obstacle is the anti-technology greens.

It's really not QUITE that simple, of course. If everything goes well,
yes. IF. But if a wind turbine or a solar panel or a tidal array goes
****-shaped, then there's a bit of a clear-up required. Same for a fossil
power station. But when nuclear goes ****-shaped, it goes VERY, VERY,
VERY, VERY ****-shaped.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:12:48 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:58:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not least of which is that the current total National Grid consumption
is less than 50Kwh.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, arse. Yes, you're right. Giga. Kilo. Mega. It's a subtle difference
between friends.

Hold on one minute... It was just that _one_ line that I ****ed the units
up on.

You said that an airliner "fill-up" would be about 1GWh - and could be
filled in one hour. Now, unless my physics is TOTALLY ****ed, that's 1GW
for that one hour. And the total UK National Grid demand is currently
about 46GW. So, yes, 46 planes being plugged in would equal the current
total electrickery consumption. And, yes, Sizewell A (420MW) and B (1.2GW)
_would_ basically be flat out for one hour to "fill" those two planes.

Even when Sizewell C comes online (2 x 1.6GW), that's "just" going to
take the whole of Sizewell to five planes.

Them's some big bits of wire being draped across the tarmac.

On 23/01/2014 14:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/01/14 14:17, Nightjar wrote:
On 21/01/2014 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/01/14 09:33, Nightjar wrote:
...
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.

Where I would expect to see it first is in military vehicles. The
logistical advantages of never needing to refuel would justify spending
lots of money on the development. I still want a nuclear powered car
though.

Umm. the problem with that is cooling pure and simple, shielding and
weight.

Its not hard to make a 20-50,000 bhp reactor. But air cooling it is non
trivial.

And it still needs a lot of shielding if you are going to sit next to it
all day.

The laser excited thorium reactor LPS are working on is a beta emitter.
To crash proof it for use in cars, they are fitting it inside a 3" thick
stainless steel case, which is heavy duty overkill shielding for beta
particles.

And you need some way to turn the heat into mechanical energy.

That seems to be the stumbling block ATM; creating a steam turbine that
will give enough power output while still being small enough to fit into
a car.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:

That seems to be the stumbling block ATM; creating a steam turbine that
will give enough power output while still being small enough to fit into
a car.

The next problem is carrying enough water to turn into steam! Trains
had to re water enroute, I just don't see troughs on motorways!

On 23/01/2014 11:17, harryagain wrote:

What about Gallium in semi-conductors?
All mining causes pollution.
Some is exceptionally polluting.


but not nuclear, its very well contained and safe.

On 23/01/14 17:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 23/01/2014 14:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/01/14 14:17, Nightjar wrote:
On 21/01/2014 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/01/14 09:33, Nightjar wrote:
...
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.

Where I would expect to see it first is in military vehicles. The
logistical advantages of never needing to refuel would justify
spending
lots of money on the development. I still want a nuclear powered car
though.

Umm. the problem with that is cooling pure and simple, shielding and
weight.

Its not hard to make a 20-50,000 bhp reactor. But air cooling it is non
trivial.

And it still needs a lot of shielding if you are going to sit next
to it
all day.

The laser excited thorium reactor LPS are working on is a beta
emitter. To crash proof it for use in cars, they are fitting it inside
a 3" thick stainless steel case, which is heavy duty overkill
shielding for beta particles.

And you need some way to turn the heat into mechanical energy.

That seems to be the stumbling block ATM; creating a steam turbine
that will give enough power output while still being small enough to
fit into a car.

And what about the condenser?



well that is less an issue, sibce most cars dump 75% of the energy in
the actual radiators anyway.

a fan blown radiator gets rid of VAST amounts of heat.

And in fact a lot of gas power stations use similar these days to do the
condensing

It could be done with a flash steam boler, and then a secondary water
circuit running through radiators.

No water ever lost, only heat.





--
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.