In article ,
tim... wrote:


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:32 -0000, tim... wrote:

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter
journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

He was talking about diesel powered cars.

he said "diesels etc"

I interpreted that as "diesels and petrol" otherwise the response is
"everyone will drive petrol cars then".

on a scale of 1 to 10, where diesel is 10, and electric 0, petrol is a 9.

As regards the sort of pollution we suffer in towns? Not so. Modern petrol
cars are very clean indeed.

As regards CO2, they obviously still produce that. But then so do most of
the electrical generation plants in the UK.

there would be no point at all banning diesels as route to making
everyone take up electric cars

There would be in towns.

I'm a bit surprised that
the govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the
future. They are a menace.

all those taxis and lorries would have to go

IIRC, new London Taxis will have to be hybrids shortly. Some buses already
are - but with diesel engines.



--
*Rehab is for quitters.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Much of what Turnip says is. Or more accurately, delusion.

He wasn't suggesting that people have nuclear powered cars, but he was
pointing out that only atomic fuel has the energy density necessary to
give cars the ranges to match those of today's ICE cars,

Eh? You are going to have to re-fuel nuclear powered cars as often?

If the object is just to reduce harmful emissions, hydrogen power can do
that already, with adequate range and reasonably fast refuelling. At a
cost. That is existing technology - not something Turnip read in The Eagle.


with the
implication that battery powered cars with those ranges would never
happen, for obvious reasons.

Never say never.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
And of course you'd have to at least double the generating capacity of
the National Grid and its distribution system. Bearing in mind that
renewables don't contribute more than about 15 - 20% of our
electricity supply ATM, without much prospect of that being
significantly increased, battery powered vehicles aren't going to
happen because there won't be the electricity to power them,
regardless of the availability of the batteries.

Which do you think will come first?
A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK - or nuclear powered
cars?

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 01:00:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter journeys.
Plenty of fast charging points would help too

For commuters *fast* charging is less essential - cars can be slow
charged if there are enough points, which could approach 100% of parking
spaces needing to be electrified.

Yes. Although for perhaps most, charging overnight at home would give
enough range for the next day's use.

That would be needed anyway as most commuters won't pop out of the
office at 11 am to move their fast-charged car out of a charging bay so
someone else can put their car in it for a couple of hours.

The government don't seem to have decided whether they want to reduce
fossil fuel use in total, or reduce emissions in city centres. I don't
think the two necessarily go together.

The government doesn't know their arse from their elbow when it comes down
to emissions. Everyone with any knowledge of the subject knew diesels
produced more harmful emissions, then as now. It's only CO2 they produce
less of.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/12/16 18:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:13:45 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
And of course you'd have to at least double the generating capacity of
the National Grid and its distribution system. Bearing in mind that
renewables don't contribute more than about 15 - 20% of our
electricity supply ATM, without much prospect of that being
significantly increased, battery powered vehicles aren't going to
happen because there won't be the electricity to power them,
regardless of the availability of the batteries.

Which do you think will come first?
A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK - or nuclear powered
cars?

Nuclear power stations, obviously, but that assumes TPTB and the
general public would be prepared to go all nuclear, and that there'd
be double the capacity in both generation and transmission, neither of
which will happen any time soon.

treble.

If you take climate change/renewable ******** out of the equation, and
rationalise nuclear regulation, you are looking at a ~50 year process of
building nuclear and building enough grid infrastructure to replace
increasingly expensive fossil with cheap nuclear electrical power
wherever possible.

In the end the market will drive the process, if its allowed to.

tim... wrote:

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 13:29:37 UTC, tim... wrote:
Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming on
stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics
lecture

No fusion on the horizon yet then?

Of course

breakthrough within the next 10 years.

but weren't they saying that 50 years ago? (OK I'll admit, in that respect,
perhaps my 50 years was a small exaggeration)

tim

'They' were certainly saying that more than fifty years ago to my
personal knowledge. And resorting to Wikipedia shows that the Manhattan
project had it on the agenda, though probably they had momentary fusion
in mind, and this was weaponised not long after.

--

Roger Hayter

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:04:09 +0000, tim... wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:06 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:

Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming
on stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics lecture

Disappointed doesn't cover it.


Patience. They have to start somewhere. It may develop and improve.

today's is about how animals create/store/use energy so I am not hopeful

Me neither. As scientific lectures go, it falls disgracefully short of
the level I'd have expected of even the more recent dumbed down Horizon
programmes (and, with very few exceptions, they've generally been truly
disgraceful).

The "AA "battery"" analogy is rather puerile imo lacking, as it does,
any reference to a scientific energy equivalent such as the number of
joules (or even watt hours) equivalency of 'the typical (presumably
alkaline) AA cell'. After that, it all went rapidly downhill from then on.

I've never been impressed by any of these Xmas lectures in recent years
due to the remarkable absence of 'scientific rigour' and this year's
lecture series seems destined to set the bar to its lowest level ever. :-(

I'm surprised there aren't any YouTube versions where the missing data
points have been added to rectify the absence of scientific content which
would at least double, if not triple, the running time of each lecture
session.

I guess the BBC just root out out the less reputable "scientists" to
bribe them into trading whatever scientific integrity they may still have
possessed for a big fat bribe in exchange for whoring themselves in this
way.

Scientifically speaking, this Xmas lecture series has been the most
'content free' series I've ever seen to date. The only reason I'm
recording this series at all has now been reduced to that of "evidence
gathering" in the event that a criminal case of "Crimes against
Scientific knowledge and learning" is ever brought against the UK's
Public Service Broadcaster.

--
Johnny B Good

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:06 +0000, tim... wrote:

Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming on
stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics lecture

Disappointed doesn't cover it.

Did nobody spot these 'lectures' are aimed at children? Just saying.


--
TOJ.

On 27/12/2016 16:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies that
are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Some of whom are actually academic physicists (even if I have never
heard of them) and some people with a very real interest in it actually
being right.

I have no personal opinion on who is right, but you really do not have
the visibility for me to believe that it is you.

Especially when, without these two orders of magnitude improvement,
electric cars for the masses, that automotive companies are investing
billion in, are never going to happen.

Tim,
I'll be amazed if you can find any scientist who thinks you can get two
orders of magnitude more storage in a chemical battery. The limits are
down the the reaction energy of the elements involved, and these are
well known.

More power for a shorter time, or more battery life (recharge more
times) is quite feasible, but not more capacity.

Andy

"tim..." wrote in message news


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-12-27, tim... wrote:
Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming on
stream in the next 20 years

What "new technology"?

I dunno, it's not my professional field so I was hoping to learn about new stuff.

For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies that are a couple
of orders of magnitude better than currently available.


But rather than read up on them in "The New Scientist" or similar, or check them
out for yourself in Wikipaedia, you held back hoping that there'd be a TV programme
about them over Christmas ? I see.

TV nowadays is primarily for entertainment; they even scrapped
OU broadcasts years ago. Either pure entertainment or presenting
information in an entertaining way largely for an audience
who otherwise wouldn't go out of their way to research this
material for themselves.

What it isn't designed for is people who are already familiar
with a topic and who expect, for some unaccountable reason
to actually learn something new. Or maybe they just like
to show off ?

On 12/28/2016 6:10 PM, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:04:09 +0000, tim... wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:06 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:

Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming
on stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics lecture

Disappointed doesn't cover it.


Patience. They have to start somewhere. It may develop and improve.

today's is about how animals create/store/use energy so I am not hopeful

Me neither. As scientific lectures go, it falls disgracefully short of
the level I'd have expected of even the more recent dumbed down Horizon
programmes (and, with very few exceptions, they've generally been truly
disgraceful).

The "AA "battery"" analogy is rather puerile imo lacking, as it does,
any reference to a scientific energy equivalent such as the number of
joules (or even watt hours) equivalency of 'the typical (presumably
alkaline) AA cell'. After that, it all went rapidly downhill from then on.

I've never been impressed by any of these Xmas lectures in recent years
due to the remarkable absence of 'scientific rigour' and this year's
lecture series seems destined to set the bar to its lowest level ever. :-(


+1. I have been disappointed with these for many years, and a bit
surprised given the (once) great reputation of the Royal Institution for
public lectures.

The Reith Lectures, on the other hand, I generally find to be excellent.
And the BBC don't do a bad job with the questions.

I did but from what I know about most of tthe children of the age they
usually get, they need to be far more advanced to hold their attention. You
could tell most of the time they were bored and the only bits they were
interested in were the bits where he blew stuff up.

Very little new came to light even in the last one though thankfully
somebody must have told hiim about his use of k instead of g on the end of
words.

I'd have liked to have had more details about the reason why mobile phones
gps used so much power, I mean he explained about transmitting and the
screen needed a light etc, but why would a receiver need tso much power?
OK he did labour power density rather a lot but to me, even the me back in
the 60s this was the bleedin obvious. It was a problem back then and is
still one now. Also obviously the more power dense a substance is the harder
it is to store and control. Yes we did the hydrogen experiments back in the
60s too one day they said this will be the only fuel, well here we are and
just like Nuclear Fusion we still are waiting.


I think though the lectures were no doubt done in good faith, they were a
bit of a disappointment, proobably due to the fact an awful lot of modern
development is now commercially sensitive and hence not public knowledge.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Other John" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:06 +0000, tim... wrote:

Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming on
stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics lecture

Disappointed doesn't cover it.

Did nobody spot these 'lectures' are aimed at children? Just saying.


--
TOJ.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:32 -0000, tim... wrote:

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter
journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

He was talking about diesel powered cars. I'm a bit surprised that
the govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the
future. They are a menace.

Then the Government will have to compensate the owners of diesel engined
cars. We bought them because the Government recommeded them as creating
less polution than petrol ones and reduced road tax to prove it.

Most people who are suggesting banning diesels have suggested a date of 2025
for implementation.

ISTM that 9 year's notice is sufficient for people who already own one,
people who buy going forward from today, are already "on notice".

The big problem with banning diesels is in lorry/van usage. This market
uses diesels because of the greater longevity of the engines and forcing
commercial operators to use vehicles that need scrapping sooner will push up
costs

tim











--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:04:09 +0000, tim... wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:06 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:

Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming
on stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics lecture

Disappointed doesn't cover it.


Patience. They have to start somewhere. It may develop and improve.

today's is about how animals create/store/use energy so I am not hopeful

Me neither. As scientific lectures go, it falls disgracefully short of
the level I'd have expected of even the more recent dumbed down Horizon
programmes (and, with very few exceptions, they've generally been truly
disgraceful).

The "AA "battery"" analogy is rather puerile imo lacking, as it does,
any reference to a scientific energy equivalent such as the number of
joules (or even watt hours) equivalency of 'the typical (presumably
alkaline) AA cell'. After that, it all went rapidly downhill from then on.

I've never been impressed by any of these Xmas lectures in recent years
due to the remarkable absence of 'scientific rigour' and this year's
lecture series seems destined to set the bar to its lowest level ever. :-(

I'm surprised there aren't any YouTube versions where the missing data
points have been added to rectify the absence of scientific content which
would at least double, if not triple, the running time of each lecture
session.

I guess the BBC just root out out the less reputable "scientists" to
bribe them into trading whatever scientific integrity they may still have
possessed for a big fat bribe in exchange for whoring themselves in this
way.

One assumes that the RI have input into these decisions as they have a
direct interest in the quality of the output

Which as you say has been poor this year. Reviews in another place are
uniformly poor.

Though back to my original point, he did, in the third lecture, tell us
about future ideas that are being worked on - a three fold improvement in
Lithium technology probably 10 years away.

Not enough, not quick enough, to meet (worldwide) government aspirations to
have 100% electric car sales by 2025.

I hope that I am still alive to see them back track on this. It is wholly
predictable.

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Actually you are wrong, we have batteries that are just about good
enough for short range cars. a single order of magnitude might be
enough to fly a commercial electric airliner to the USA.

Short range cars are no good as "main" cars

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

The Nissan Leaf costs from about 17 grand.

After government subsidy and some other discount that I can't make sense of
(there's mention of battery rental, but no costs stated)

basic full OTR price is 26,000 and that's with the battery pack that's only
good for 80 miles (in real use), 30 grand for 120 miles.

My estimate of 40 grand was for a car that was capable of at least 150
miles, *in real use*, (and I don't consider even that sufficient for mass
take up)

Let the rich drive into town whilst the poor have to walk - gonna be a
real vote winner that, isn't it?

It's already what happens in a capitalist society. I take it you hate
that?

why wouldn't you

unless you are one of the rich!

Plenty of fast charging points would help too - as would some form of
easily changeable power pack common to all. And it's more likely you
could make a small battery vehicle with a decent range than a large
one at a more economic price.

the cost of the battery is much the same

No it's not. Depends on the capacity.

The cost of a battery to achieve 300 miles is the same whatever car you put
it in (the extra weight of a slightly larger car is insignificant in this
calculation)

claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles isn't
valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while and a car
that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

To be mass market all cars have to have a battery capable of 300 miles (in
real use)

(though I suppose there is a possibly of renting secondary batteries for a
single trip, but that will impinge on the luggage load)

To get 100% acceptance (which TPTB seem to think is necessary) they
need range and cost no more than current cars

The costs of various types of car - and fuel - is under government
control.

only if you subsidise the capital costs

Or put up the costs of running a petrol/diesel car.

the problem here is that liquid fuel is used for other things

why should those other uses have to pay more to meet this electric car
"dream"

something which might work to start off sales but can't be afforded if
100% of sales are of electric cars

If they become the norm, the prices will fall.

the costs are all in the battery

there is no sight of the costs falling

There is a second mass market for batteries where size/weight doesn't matter
and only cost is an issue. That of home (or network) storage. And even
with that opportunity, costs aren't falling.

Two orders of magnitude ain't gonna happen with batteries. The ONLY
thing with the sort of energy density is atomic fuel.



well that's not going to happen for domestic transport, is it?

Turnip knows no more about what might happen in the future than anyone
else. And his guesses less well informed than many.

The idea that TPTB are going to let vessels with nuclear fuel in them
run around on normal roads driven by uncle Tom Cobley and all is fantasy

Much of what Turnip says is. Or more accurately, delusion.

Physics tells us that. That's why I can say 'aint gonna happen'

So why aren't these same Physicists explaining all that to the
Automotive industry?

It's awash with money. It's not like the can't afford to ask

The motor industry ain't going to spend unlimited amounts on blind
alley research.

well they ARE spending the money

They do spend money on, yes. But more accurately on development.

I'm not sure what you are saying

to be clear, they are spending pots of money (billions) on *development* of
electric cars

tim

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/12/2016 16:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that
are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Some of whom are actually academic physicists (even if I have never
heard of them) and some people with a very real interest in it actually
being right.

I have no personal opinion on who is right, but you really do not have
the visibility for me to believe that it is you.

Especially when, without these two orders of magnitude improvement,
electric cars for the masses, that automotive companies are investing
billion in, are never going to happen.

Tim,
I'll be amazed if you can find any scientist who thinks you can get two
orders of magnitude more storage in a chemical battery. The limits are
down the the reaction energy of the elements involved, and these are well
known.

So why aren't these scientists explaining to politicians that their
aspiration of 100% electric cars/vans/lorries is unachievable.

To get mass take up of electric cars you have to have a range of 350 miles
(in real use), a residual value after 5 years (so the initial battery needs
to be useful for 10) with base models (still with that 350 range) selling
for under 15 grand (today's money).

At the moment we have electric cars that don't have the range for main
family cars and that are too expensive for second cars.

If we are never going to break out of that circle the sales for electric
cars are never going to exceed 10%.

And yet, worldwide, politicians ARE expectation to cast the IC engine to
history by 2025.

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on an
estate with only communal parking.

tim

"Moron Watch" wrote in message
news

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-12-27, tim... wrote:
Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is coming
on
stream in the next 20 years

What "new technology"?

I dunno, it's not my professional field so I was hoping to learn about
new stuff.

For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies that
are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently available.


But rather than read up on them in "The New Scientist" or similar,

You can't expect someone to subscribe to a general magazine on the off
chance that a specific article will appear

or check them
out for yourself in Wikipaedia,

AKA Wonkypedia

you held back hoping that there'd be a TV programme
about them over Christmas ? I see.

Of course not. It just happened along. I wasn't waiting for it.

tim

In article , tim...
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , mechanic
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:32 -0000, tim... wrote:

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter
journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

He was talking about diesel powered cars. I'm a bit surprised that the
govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the future.
They are a menace.

Then the Government will have to compensate the owners of diesel
engined cars. We bought them because the Government recommeded them as
creating less polution than petrol ones and reduced road tax to prove
it.

Most people who are suggesting banning diesels have suggested a date of
2025 for implementation.

ISTM that 9 year's notice is sufficient for people who already own one,
people who buy going forward from today, are already "on notice".

The big problem with banning diesels is in lorry/van usage. This market
uses diesels because of the greater longevity of the engines and forcing
commercial operators to use vehicles that need scrapping sooner will push
up costs

Quite a few rail locos still use diesel, too. The cost of electrifying all
the railways lines is going to be horrendous.








-- from KT24 in Surrey, England

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , tim...
wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/12/2016 16:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently
available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Some of whom are actually academic physicists (even if I have never
heard of them) and some people with a very real interest in it
actually being right.

I have no personal opinion on who is right, but you really do not have
the visibility for me to believe that it is you.

Especially when, without these two orders of magnitude improvement,
electric cars for the masses, that automotive companies are investing
billion in, are never going to happen.

Tim, I'll be amazed if you can find any scientist who thinks you can
get two orders of magnitude more storage in a chemical battery. The
limits are down the the reaction energy of the elements involved, and
these are well known.

So why aren't these scientists explaining to politicians that their
aspiration of 100% electric cars/vans/lorries is unachievable.

To get mass take up of electric cars you have to have a range of 350
miles (in real use), a residual value after 5 years (so the initial
battery needs to be useful for 10) with base models (still with that 350
range) selling for under 15 grand (today's money).

At least 3 times a year, I have a requirement for a 400 mile, one day,
journey - each way.

At the moment we have electric cars that don't have the range for main
family cars and that are too expensive for second cars.

If we are never going to break out of that circle the sales for electric
cars are never going to exceed 10%.

And yet, worldwide, politicians ARE expectation to cast the IC engine to
history by 2025.

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home
with planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on
an estate with only communal parking.

One space per household round here. Even if the family has 2 cars - needed
when public transport doesn't run at weekends and not after 5pm (or before
10am)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 10:30:35 UTC, tim... wrote:
And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on an
estate with only communal parking.

And in really rural areas, 25,000 people with no mains electricity.

I wonder how long it will be until a child is killed by someone taking the cover off a lamp-post to get a free charge for their car with some croc clips.

Owain

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 10:52:16 UTC, wrote:
And in really rural areas, 25,000 people with no mains electricity.

Edit - 25,000 properties, 75,000 people.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/lifes...tery-1-7247270

"They generate their own electricity from a £30,000 wind turbine system that feeds a bank of batteries and they have a diesel generator for back-up."

Wonder where they'll get their diesel from when all the petrol stations have been turned into sausage roll shops.

Owain

In article ,
wrote:
On Thursday, 29 December 2016 10:30:35 UTC, tim... wrote:
And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home
with planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses
on an estate with only communal parking.

And in really rural areas, 25,000 people with no mains electricity.

They'll be using diesel generators!

I wonder how long it will be until a child is killed by someone taking
the cover off a lamp-post to get a free charge for their car with some
croc clips.

Owain

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , mechanic
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:32 -0000, tim... wrote:

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter
journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

He was talking about diesel powered cars. I'm a bit surprised that the
govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the future.
They are a menace.

Then the Government will have to compensate the owners of diesel
engined cars. We bought them because the Government recommeded them as
creating less polution than petrol ones and reduced road tax to prove
it.

Most people who are suggesting banning diesels have suggested a date of
2025 for implementation.

ISTM that 9 year's notice is sufficient for people who already own one,
people who buy going forward from today, are already "on notice".

The big problem with banning diesels is in lorry/van usage. This market
uses diesels because of the greater longevity of the engines and forcing
commercial operators to use vehicles that need scrapping sooner will push
up costs

Quite a few rail locos still use diesel, too. The cost of electrifying
all
the railways lines is going to be horrendous.

but unlike electric cars

the capital and maintenance costs of operating electric trains is less than
for diesel

Over a 40 year life-time the savings on the total costs of ownership of a
fleet of electric trains pays back the costs of electrifying the line (well
it did before unreasonable H&S pushed up the costs of electrification by
300%)

tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/12/2016 16:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently
available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Some of whom are actually academic physicists (even if I have never
heard of them) and some people with a very real interest in it
actually being right.

I have no personal opinion on who is right, but you really do not have
the visibility for me to believe that it is you.

Especially when, without these two orders of magnitude improvement,
electric cars for the masses, that automotive companies are investing
billion in, are never going to happen.

Tim, I'll be amazed if you can find any scientist who thinks you can
get two orders of magnitude more storage in a chemical battery. The
limits are down the the reaction energy of the elements involved, and
these are well known.

So why aren't these scientists explaining to politicians that their
aspiration of 100% electric cars/vans/lorries is unachievable.

To get mass take up of electric cars you have to have a range of 350
miles (in real use), a residual value after 5 years (so the initial
battery needs to be useful for 10) with base models (still with that 350
range) selling for under 15 grand (today's money).

At least 3 times a year, I have a requirement for a 400 mile, one day,
journey - each way.

At the moment we have electric cars that don't have the range for main
family cars and that are too expensive for second cars.

If we are never going to break out of that circle the sales for electric
cars are never going to exceed 10%.

And yet, worldwide, politicians ARE expectation to cast the IC engine to
history by 2025.

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home
with planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on
an estate with only communal parking.

One space per household round here. Even if the family has 2 cars -
needed
when public transport doesn't run at weekends and not after 5pm (or before
10am)

as there is round here

but it isn't the same space, and if you aren't one of the first 3 people
back home the next free space isn't always convenient.

So it's impossible to put in a charge point that is fed from my electricity
meter, which means that it will have to be commercially operated and charged
for

tim







--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , tim...
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , mechanic
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:32 -0000, tim... wrote:

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban
them totally in towns, they might be the only option for
commuter journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

He was talking about diesel powered cars. I'm a bit surprised that
the govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the
future. They are a menace.

Then the Government will have to compensate the owners of diesel
engined cars. We bought them because the Government recommeded them
as creating less polution than petrol ones and reduced road tax to
prove it.

Most people who are suggesting banning diesels have suggested a date
of 2025 for implementation.

ISTM that 9 year's notice is sufficient for people who already own
one, people who buy going forward from today, are already "on notice".

The big problem with banning diesels is in lorry/van usage. This
market uses diesels because of the greater longevity of the engines
and forcing commercial operators to use vehicles that need scrapping
sooner will push up costs

Quite a few rail locos still use diesel, too. The cost of electrifying
all the railways lines is going to be horrendous.

but unlike electric cars

the capital and maintenance costs of operating electric trains is less
than for diesel

Over a 40 year life-time the savings on the total costs of ownership of a
fleet of electric trains pays back the costs of electrifying the line
(well it did before unreasonable H&S pushed up the costs of
electrification by 300%)

Overhead electrification often requires bridges to be rebuilt - or it did
on the East Coast line. That is presumably why the government has put a
stop to the proposed GWR electrification.









--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 29/12/16 12:03, tim... wrote:
Though back to my original point, he did, in the third lecture, tell us
about future ideas that are being worked on - a three fold improvement
in Lithium technology probably 10 years away.

That is probably a nearly honest prediction to my mind

Not enough, not quick enough, to meet (worldwide) government aspirations
to have 100% electric car sales by 2025.

Exactly.

On 28/12/2016 21:14, Moron Watch wrote:

TV nowadays is primarily for entertainment; they even scrapped
OU broadcasts years ago.

The teaching programmes were scrapped (Mike Pentz anyone?) but several
series and individual programmes are sponsored or produced in
cooperation with the OU each year.

--
F

On 29/12/16 12:18, tim... wrote:

There is a second mass market for batteries where size/weight
doesn't matter and only cost is an issue. That of home (or network)
storage. And even with that opportunity, costs aren't falling.

The point here being that unreliable intermittent energy is more
expensive than reliable fossil or nuclear electricity even before you
add the storage...



to be clear, they are spending pots of money (billions) on
*development* of electric cars


Limited range BEVS or hybrids. No one is spending billions on long range
EVs.

The battery technology ain't there.

tim

On 29/12/16 12:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Actually you are wrong, we have batteries that are just about good
enough for short range cars. a single order of magnitude might be
enough to fly a commercial electric airliner to the USA.

Short range cars are no good as "main" cars

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter
journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

The Nissan Leaf costs from about 17 grand.

No it doesn't Dave. It costs whatever it costs. All that subsidies do
is move some part of the cost from A to B, typically with a view to
hiding it and making the item appear cheaper (when in fact it is not).

In short: the cost to society is not altered by subsidies.

In reality the cost to society is always INCREASED with subsidies.

Cost effective technologies don't need subsidising.

"tim..." wrote in message news

Not enough, not quick enough, to meet (worldwide) government aspirations to have 100%
electric car sales by 2025.

Along with worldwide government aspirations to have

World Peace by 2025

To end poverty by 2025

To end homelessness by 2025

and in the UK to finalise the details of Brexit by 2025

All bull**** IOW

HTH

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 28/12/2016 21:14, Moron Watch wrote:

TV nowadays is primarily for entertainment; they even scrapped
OU broadcasts years ago.

The teaching programmes were scrapped (Mike Pentz anyone?) but several series and
individual programmes are sponsored or produced in cooperation with the OU each year.

That's often simply to give an aura of enhanced respectability to
Michael Moseley type programmes. Not that there's necessarily anything
wrong with those as such. He's done a number on lifestyle topics,
diet, exercise regimes etc using himself as a guinea-pig.

Years ago such features wouldn't have seemed out of place on say
"Blue Peter" or one of the early evening magazine programmes -
"Tonight"or "Nationwide". While those who tired of "Farming Today"
at 6 am. could switch on the telly instead and watch some bod
with a beard and a fairisle jumper, standing in front of a whiteboard
banging on about about vector spaces and eugen values.

On 29/12/16 14:10, Moron Watch wrote:
vector spaces and eugen values.
Eigenvalues...

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The big problem with banning diesels is in lorry/van usage. This market
uses diesels because of the greater longevity of the engines and
forcing commercial operators to use vehicles that need scrapping sooner
will push up costs

Don't think that really applies these days. Diesels simply have lower
running costs - especially in stop start conditions like town deliveries.
Although petrol/hybrid technology has rather changed that.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles
isn't valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while
and a car that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

Which is why you get the nonsense of people using Chelsea tractors to take
the kids to school.

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles
isn't valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while
and a car that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

Which is why you get the nonsense of people using Chelsea tractors to take
the kids to school.

some 10 year go, there was a cartoon in one of the colour weekend newspaper
supplements: A woman said "We wnt our child to have plenasty of space,
fresh air and security." "So, we've bought a large 4x4 with air
conditioning and central locking."

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles
isn't valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while
and a car that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

Which is why you get the nonsense of people using Chelsea tractors to
take the kids to school.

Chelsea tractors are a nonsense whichever way you look at it.

I was surprised to see an aquaintance with one last autumn. She didn't seem
the type. She bought it as a result of last winter's weather - she lives
in the country.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:11:59 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Much of what Turnip says is. Or more accurately, delusion.

He wasn't suggesting that people have nuclear powered cars, but he was
pointing out that only atomic fuel has the energy density necessary to
give cars the ranges to match those of today's ICE cars,

Eh? You are going to have to re-fuel nuclear powered cars as often?

If they ever exist, which they won't, the power source will long
outlast the chassis and they'd never need refuelling. That's because
they have a very high power density, so you'd actually only need a
very small power source to last no longer than say fifteen years. But
there'd be a limit to how small you could make it. But they'll never
happen anyway.

There's a table of energy densities here, http://tinyurl.com/a4tm2qm
which shows how far ahead atomic stuff is, and how far behind ICE
fuels are batteries.

They may not be kosher or halal, but those ham and cheese sandwiches are
impressive.

On 12/27/2016 3:16 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/16 17:14, tim... wrote:


"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 13:29:37 UTC, tim... wrote:
Billed as "energy for the future"

I was expecting an exposé of all of the new technology that is
coming on
stream in the next 20 years

But with one minor exception, it was nothing more than a 50 year old
physics
lecture

No fusion on the horizon yet then?

Of course

breakthrough within the next 10 years.

but weren't they saying that 50 years ago? (OK I'll admit, in that
respect, perhaps my 50 years was a small exaggeration)


60 years IIRC..


Well 59. Sputnik year. Also Windscale pile fire, opening of Jodrell Bank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor)

Quite a few slightly interesting things that year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_i...United_Kingdom

I rather like this one:

10 September €“ Tony Lock becomes the last bowler to reach 200 wickets in
a first-class season,[25] a feat subsequently impossible due to
limited-overs cricket and covered pitches

having seen him in action at the Oval a number of times in the early 60's.

On 27/12/2016 22:30, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/16 18:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that
are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Because it is one of my specualist subjects?

so you say

but how do I know that

One way you can tell is that on this aspect of battery technology I am
in full agreement with TNP (and that doesn't happen all that often).
About the best we can hope for with electrochemistry is at most another
order of magnitude beyond present commercial Lion batteries eg.

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/30...nergy-density/

Best so far if they can make it commercially viable and reliable.

Physics tells us that. That's why I can say 'aint gonna happen'

So why aren't these same Physicists explaining all that to the
Automotive industry?

It's awash with money. It's not like the can't afford to ask

The problem is that they don't want to listen when the answers don't
match their expectations. Back in my day it was going to be sodium
sulphur batteries that would save the day. They are slightly better
energy density than Lion but also a lot more volatile and tetchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium...sulfur_battery

Compare that to the energy density per kg of petrol or kerosene and it
is obvious just how far the gap still remains. Having air available to
burn the fuel in makes a very big difference to the energy density.

Hydrogen could win eventually if someone could make a way to contain it
in bulk reliably without cryogenics, leaks or explosions.

In fairness to the Christmas lecturer this year he did attempt to show
to a young audience (and they are meant to be childrens' lectures) how
much energy different technologies could produce in a fairly graphic
way. kWhr is a bit too abstract for the younger members of the audience.
AA batteries seems like as good a measure of energy as any to me if you
are trying to explain things in very familiar units.

Far better than Blue Peter's infamous "London Double Decker Buses"
metric which as a child I had never seen.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:00:30 -0000, tim... wrote:

I'm a bit surprised that the govt hasn't announced an intention
to do this some time in the future. They are a menace.

all those taxis and lorries would have to go

They will in due course.