On 23/01/14 18:17, dennis@home wrote:
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.

I think you mean "but not nuclear which is very well contained and safe."

You obviously have never been near a mineral mine or smelting operation...

gallium for example is a trace elemennt found typically with zinc

very much an activity (zinc mining) that causes considerable
environmental pollution and very long term pollution. Zinc and lead
unlike radioactive materials do not decay at all..

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/ele...ts%20of%20zinc


--
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 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.

The funny thing is,none of these things has happened in fifty years..
Because it's all bollix.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
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."

They have been proved to be non-viable.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

And it will be a PM motor with neodymium/other rare earth magnets.



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.

The technical reason is that the air gap in small motors is larger
realtively speaking than in big motors.
Also friction losses arerelatively greater.





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.


But you have to plan for the future, not the present.

On 23/01/2014 17:07, Capitol wrote:
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!

There were condensing locomotives built for various reasons and with
various degrees of success. The least effective were probably the
Metropolitan Railway tank engines, where the steam was simply routed
back into the water tanks when running through tunnels, which created
problems of heating the water. The Russians and South Africans used
tender air condensers for long distance travel in arid areas. The
Germans built them to avoid visible plumes, which could attract and air
attack, on the Eastern front in WW2. British steam trams also use air
condensers on the roof.

It wouldn't really be that difficult to build a closed cycle steam
engine for a car.

Colin Bignell

On 23/01/14 19:03, Tim Streater wrote:
harry should read this and learn something.



hahahahah

--
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 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.

You really are a dozy pillock.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
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.


I have one.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
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.

You'd still have to stop to pick up water.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Been tried in the past and failed.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
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.

No-one has had the incentive to try until recently.

What do you call recently ? The cost of petrol has been rising sharply for
years now - much longer than the sudden hikes in electricity prices that
we've suffered in the last few years. I would have thought that the
possibility of running a car on a cheaper fuel would have driven the
research at a pace. The fact is that even though battery technology has
improved massively in the last 50 years, they still can't produce ones
that will power an electric car at any kind of speed for any kind of
practical distance, and can then be recharged in any kind of practical
time. Unless there is suddenly some hugely significant new technology
thrown into the mix, electric cars are going to remain a curiosity, loved
by the green mist brigade, but utterly impractical for use in the real
world ...

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

Lithium batteries are comparatively recent.

Define "practical distance".

99% of journeys are ten miles or less.

I get around 90% of my power for the car for free.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

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.

Point of order ... batteries - DC -commutator or inverter?

--
Tim Lamb

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.


Just a load of bollix.
There are too many unknowns to come to any conclusions at all.

Some people would charge their cars by night (at an unknown rate.)
Some would charge them from renewable sources.

And a whole lot of people won't be driving any more.
Public transport will make a big come back
And more people will work from home.
And shop from home.

On 23/01/14 19:35, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

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.

Point of order ... batteries - DC -commutator or inverter?

100% inverter these days.


--
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 19:24, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
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.

You'd still have to stop to pick up water.


No more frequently than any ICE car needs to top up its cooling water,
which is virtually never with a modern car.

Colin Bignell

On 23/01/2014 19:02, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2014 10:57, harryagain wrote:
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.

The funny thing is,none of these things has happened in fifty years..
Because it's all bollix.


How long did it take from the first discovery that the horrible slimy
seepage from the ground in parts of the Middle East could be burnt to
make light inside your windowless house to the oil industry of today?
4000 years? More? Patience is a virtue.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/01/2014 19:24, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
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.

You'd still have to stop to pick up water.


Probably less often than you have to stop to recharge an electric car.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/01/2014 19:22, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
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.


I have one.


Fusion power via your roof? Are you sure it's not just the usual fossil
fuel power at two removes via the Natioanl Grid?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 22/01/2014 21:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well with an hour to recharge, that's no big deal - that's not a lot
longer than it takes to turn a plane round, clean it, empty the toilets
etc and get the new pilots on board.

If the battery won't do long-haul, but only short haul - there's only
one thing wrong with your scenario.

Things like the LHR-Manchester shuttle run hourly. And the crews do lots
of flights - they don't get off.

Andy

On 23/01/2014 19:04, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
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."

They have been proved to be non-viable.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever for that claim?



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 23/01/2014 19:35, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
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.


Just a load of bollix.
There are too many unknowns to come to any conclusions at all.

Not at all. Use two sets of assumptions for best case and worst case,
and the final answer will very likely be within that range, probably
towards the worse end.

Some people would charge their cars by night (at an unknown rate.)
Some would charge them from renewable sources.

That would be me not working tomorrow, then. No solar after dark, and
it's a nice calm night. The bus won't be running either, unless we all
start pedalling it to work and back.

And a whole lot of people won't be driving any more.
Public transport will make a big come back

Most public transport is already more expensive and slower than
travelling by car in the UK, once you've made the initial investment,
and I can't see that changing in the foreseeable future. A bit like PV
power from roofs. For local transport, people will likely go back to
pedal power or walking, as in most places at most times now, walking is
quicker than the bus for journeys of a mile or less.

And more people will work from home.

Which will lead to the communications infrastructure needing massive
upgrading, if it happens.

And shop from home.

Ditto, and as the goods still have to be delivered to the point of use,
more delivery vehicles will be needed, along with their depots and
charging infrastructure, assuming they are electric. Still, on the
bright side, it will increase employment.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/01/2014 19:22, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
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.


I have one.

By that token, so do we all. Where do you think the embedded energy in
the carbon bonds of fossil fuels came from?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 23/01/2014 13:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(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)

A 747 at cruising is alarmingly close to its stalling speed. The air is
thin up there - and that's why they go up there. Less drag.

Andy

On 23/01/2014 19:30, harryagain wrote:
....
Define "practical distance".

99% of journeys are ten miles or less....

However, that includes all forms of transport, including walking to the
shops. An EU survey showed that during the week, UK residents drove, on
average, 15km per trip for personal reasons and 20km for business
(including commuting). On Saturday those reversed, while on Sunday
personal trip lengths increased to 30km and business trips to 25km,
although the number of business trips on a Sunday was very small. 60% of
drivers did two trips per day, with around 10% doing each of 1, 3 or 4.
The overall average was about 2.5 trips per day.

IMO a practical distance would need to be at least the 85th percentile
distance but, unfortunately, that cannot be determined from the survey
results. However, I suspect it is likely to be quite a lot more than the
average.

Colin Bignell

On 23/01/14 21:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2014 13:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(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)

A 747 at cruising is alarmingly close to its stalling speed. The air is
thin up there - and that's why they go up there. Less drag.


It's not flying close top its stalling speed AT GROUND LEVEL where it
does its taking off.


Andy


--
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 19:25, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Been tried in the past and failed.

True of a great deal of technology, until somebody comes along and
figures out how to make it work.

Colin Bignell

On 23/01/2014 22:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/01/14 21:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2014 13:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(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)

A 747 at cruising is alarmingly close to its stalling speed. The air is
thin up there - and that's why they go up there. Less drag.


It's not flying close top its stalling speed AT GROUND LEVEL where it
does its taking off.

My point being that there's not a simple ratio between ground-level
stalling speed with all flaps and slots set, and high level economical
cruise.

But this is not an area I have enormous knowledge of, I'm only an
interested amateur.

Andy

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.

Been tried in the past and failed.

True of a great deal of technology, until somebody comes along and figures
out how to make it work.

Colin Bignell

By using up-to-date materials and techniques that didn't exist when the idea
was first tried, and failed ...

Arfa

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.


Just a load of bollix.
There are too many unknowns to come to any conclusions at all.

Some people would charge their cars by night (at an unknown rate.)
Some would charge them from renewable sources.

And a whole lot of people won't be driving any more.
Public transport will make a big come back
And more people will work from home.
And shop from home.

Public transport will make a big comeback ??!! You really do live in cloud
cuckoo land, Harry ...

Arfa

On 25/01/2014 12:45, Arfa Daily wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
And a whole lot of people won't be driving any more.
Public transport will make a big come back
And more people will work from home.
And shop from home.

Public transport will make a big comeback ??!! You really do live in
cloud cuckoo land, Harry ...

Public transport will have a job to make a come back, as usage now is
higher than it's been in a *long* while. Certainly in the London area,
there is a lot of crowding at peak hours, with 100,000 people daily
being unable to find a seat during the rush hour.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:03:20 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

Public transport will have a job to make a come back, as usage now is
higher than it's been in a *long* while.

So that'll be why our County Council is proposing to axe the subsidy
on a couple of dozen routes up here then. They are basing this on
lack of use and cost. This will mean a number of places have no bus
at all, not even the *weekly* one they have at present.

Certainly in the London area, there is a lot of crowding at peak hours,
with 100,000 people daily being unable to find a seat during the rush
hour.

So don't travel in "rush hour", why does a paper pushers working day
have to be synchronised with any other paper pusher? Or even don't
travel at all, what is the advantage of sitting in front of a
computer in an plush office over sitting at a computer in a home
office?


--
Cheers
Dave.

On 30/01/2014 08:50, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:03:20 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

Public transport will have a job to make a come back, as usage now is
higher than it's been in a *long* while.

So that'll be why our County Council is proposing to axe the subsidy
on a couple of dozen routes up here then. They are basing this on
lack of use and cost. This will mean a number of places have no bus
at all, not even the *weekly* one they have at present.

Not all routes are equal, and the requirement for the council to keep
"Socially desirable" routes in operation has disappeared. Since bus
companies are also banned from cross subsidising routes, any route that
doesn't make a profit, including any subsidy, will be dropped. Another
factor that hasn't helped is the fact that the amount paid to the bus
operator per pass has been reduced by a significant amount this year, so
even busy routes may not be profitable,if the major part of the
travelling on that route is done by pass holders. Meanwhile, peak hour
services from suburbs to work centres are full to overflowing, and often
have to leave pasengers standing waiting for the next one.

Certainly in the London area, there is a lot of crowding at peak hours,
with 100,000 people daily being unable to find a seat during the rush
hour.

So don't travel in "rush hour", why does a paper pushers working day
have to be synchronised with any other paper pusher? Or even don't
travel at all, what is the advantage of sitting in front of a
computer in an plush office over sitting at a computer in a home
office?

Inertia on the accountants' side of life. There are also many managers
who like to see the wage slaves grafting at a hot keyboard, and don't
trust the many technological ways of monitoring work.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/01/2014 10:18, John Williamson wrote:

So don't travel in "rush hour", why does a paper pushers working day
have to be synchronised with any other paper pusher? Or even don't
travel at all, what is the advantage of sitting in front of a
computer in an plush office over sitting at a computer in a home
office?

Inertia on the accountants' side of life. There are also many managers
who like to see the wage slaves grafting at a hot keyboard, and don't
trust the many technological ways of monitoring work.

Some things are better done in person too. And I say this as somebody
who's worked away from the office for over ten years and also works at
different times to most of my colleagues.