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.

tim





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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?

"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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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..

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.

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

Yes well this is for da kids innit and with a person in charge who
substitutes k's for Gs on the end of words like something what do you
expect.

Its entertainment not education as I see it and as such I guess its OK.
Why cannot we have just a few programmes which deal with the really
technical stuff, like why is a certain substance better in a solar cell, and
all of that, not just that it is and we are looking for stuff even better,
and dumbing stuff down to how much power in an aa battery, was this
sponsored by duracell?


I got the distinct impression that the lecturer and some of his mates was
enjoying going back to childhood rather than enjoying teaching science.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"tim..." wrote in message
news
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.

tim





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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.

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.

On 28/12/2016 19:34, The Other John wrote:
Did nobody spot these 'lectures' are aimed at children? Just saying.

I used to watch them up to about 10 years ago. They used to be pretty
good. But my _kids_ say modern GCSEs are dumbed down...

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 28/12/2016 19:34, The Other John wrote:
Did nobody spot these 'lectures' are aimed at children? Just saying.

I used to watch them up to about 10 years ago. They used to be pretty
good. But my _kids_ say modern GCSEs are dumbed down...

in order for 50% of the cohort to get an "A" they have to be

tim

In article ,
says...


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

But so were Eric Laithwaite's lectures in the 60s although,
today, elfin safety might have something to say about firing
iron and copper arrows at a target painted on a large sheet
of expanded polystyrene or hauling a group of kids up a
staircase using a linear motor on a temporary track ...

--

Terry

"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

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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 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.

"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

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.

"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

"Moron Watch" wrote in message
news

"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

though in the case of EVs governments are putting polices in place now on
the assumption that it will happen

tim

Well Its somefink out of nuffink if it does.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"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.

--

Chris

"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.

And if you can see into the future, how about telling
us next week's lottery numbers?

Where science is concerned the future is all about making commercially
viable what is actually possible today, but only in the lab - not
speculation of things which are completely unobtainable.

Even fusion is possible in laboratory conditions, just not in a way that
generates more energy that you need to put in to start it. It's the
engineering that we need to improve here, not the science.

OTOH, no-one has even the faintest idea how to make a time machine.

(BTW please don't interpret the above as my giving support for fusion, I was
just using it as an example that everyone has heard about)

tim





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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....

What about chemical batteries?
Ie the idea of storing the energy made as surplus electicity so it can be
used later on and transported safely.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"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....

On 27/12/16 18:08, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What about chemical batteries?

Thats what we are talking about.

Ie the idea of storing the energy made as surplus electicity so it can be
used later on and transported safely.

Um you cant store 'energy as surplus electricity' except in a
battery....and even then arguably your re storing it as chemical energy..
Brian

On 27/12/2016 18:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/12/16 18:08, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What about chemical batteries?

Thats what we are talking about.

Ie the idea of storing the energy made as surplus electicity so it
can be
used later on and transported safely.

Um you cant store 'energy as surplus electricity' except in a
battery....and even then arguably your re storing it as chemical energy..

It is definitely stored as chemical energy in a battery. Some modern
supercapacitors do actually store electricity as charge separation.

There is a choice of potential energy as in pumped storage of which the
Welsh hydroelectric scheme leads the way or as kinetic energy as a fast
spinning flywheel of which the system for stowing the MRAO 5km telescope
was at one time the largest example - some busses used it in Switzerland
even earlier. The flywheel would go a scary distance with tremendous
destructive power if it ever broke loose from its bearings. It is coming
back into fashion again for transport:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/in...r-london-buses

It makes little difference whether the energy is stored as chemical
energy or mechanical energy. What counts is the overall efficiency.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/12/2016 16:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian-Gaff
wrote:

What about chemical batteries?
Ie the idea of storing the energy made as surplus electicity so it
can be used later on and transported safely.

All batteries are chemical batteries.

Apart from nuclear powered thermopiles as are used on some deep space
exploration vehicles that go too far away for solar power to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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?


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.

Oh, and so people with 'a very real interest in it actually being right'
are the ones to give you an unbiased opinion?


ROFLMFAO!.


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.
*shrug* invest your pension in dried unicorn dung then.


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.


Precisely.

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.

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

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

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 18:14:25 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
*shrug* invest your pension in dried unicorn dung then.

Nicola Sturgeon already has :-(

Owain

"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

So I'm supposed to believe that you are the world's expert, just because you
say so

well that's a no!

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.

Oh, and so people with 'a very real interest in it actually being right'
are the ones to give you an unbiased opinion?


ROFLMFAO!.


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.
*shrug* invest your pension in dried unicorn dung then.


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.


Precisely.

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

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

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?


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

tim

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

"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

What is needed is to use all that radiation and heat from nuclear waste in
such a way that it can give us power while gradually removing the radiation
from the material.
That would be a winner even if at the start it would be dangerous to allow
the public to buy batteries full of hot carbon or plutonium.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"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.

And if you can see into the future, how about telling
us next week's lottery numbers?

Where science is concerned the future is all about making commercially
viable what is actually possible today, but only in the lab - not
speculation of things which are completely unobtainable.

Even fusion is possible in laboratory conditions, just not in a way that
generates more energy that you need to put in to start it. It's the
engineering that we need to improve here, not the science.

OTOH, no-one has even the faintest idea how to make a time machine.

(BTW please don't interpret the above as my giving support for fusion, I
was just using it as an example that everyone has heard about)

tim





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 27/12/16 18:06, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What is needed is to use all that radiation and heat from nuclear waste in
such a way that it can give us power while gradually removing the radiation
from the material.

Er that's what a nuclearreactor DOES.

That would be a winner even if at the start it would be dangerous to allow
the public to buy batteries full of hot carbon or plutonium.

It wouldn't be really.

But a lot of greens and a lot of other businesses would be very put out.

Brian

On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 15:12:32 UTC, tim... wrote:
"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.

And if you can see into the future, how about telling
us next week's lottery numbers?

Where science is concerned the future is all about making commercially
viable what is actually possible today, but only in the lab - not
speculation of things which are completely unobtainable.

Even fusion is possible in laboratory conditions, just not in a way that
generates more energy that you need to put in to start it. It's the
engineering that we need to improve here, not the science.

OTOH, no-one has even the faintest idea how to make a time machine.

All you have to do is travel faster than light. (To go backwards in time.)

We are all time travelers in the forward direction.

On 27/12/16 15:12, 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.


It depends what you mean by "better". A lead-acid battery (invented 150
years ago) can return between 60% and 90% of the energy you put into it,
so you can only make something a few percent better.

The improvements people are talking about are weight and volume
reductions for a given energy capacity which is irrelevant to storing
mains type energy levels but IS relevant to, say, electric cars and
mobile phones which have to carry their energy with them.

Even so, talking about "orders of magnitude" is nonsense. Lead is dense
but it's not THAT dense.

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to techie

On 27/12/16 19:32, Another Dave wrote:
On 27/12/16 15:12, 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.


It depends what you mean by "better". A lead-acid battery (invented 150
years ago) can return between 60% and 90% of the energy you put into it,
so you can only make something a few percent better.

The improvements people are talking about are weight and volume
reductions for a given energy capacity which is irrelevant to storing
mains type energy levels but IS relevant to, say, electric cars and
mobile phones which have to carry their energy with them.

Even so, talking about "orders of magnitude" is nonsense. Lead is dense
but it's not THAT dense.

best energy density is lithium.We are already quite close to the
lightest lithium in batteries possible. Lithium air is potentially
almost a order better BUT the technology is awful. Its almost as hard as
building a fusion reactor.


Another Dave

"Another Dave" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/16 15:12, 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.


It depends what you mean by "better".

capacity against both weight and cost.

for use in entry level personal vehicles we need to improve both by a factor
of 100 (as in what's annoying referred to by the media as "they need to be
100 times smaller/100 times cheaper")

A lead-acid battery (invented 150 years ago) can return between 60% and
90% of the energy you put into it, so you can only make something a few
percent better.

a single lead-acid battery will "drive" a car for how long before it is
flat?

The improvements people are talking about are weight and volume reductions
for a given energy capacity which is irrelevant to storing mains type
energy levels but IS relevant to, say, electric cars and mobile phones
which have to carry their energy with them.

The cost part is also relevant to mains electricity even if the size isn't.

Even so, talking about "orders of magnitude" is nonsense. Lead is dense
but it's not THAT dense.

It lead-acid were viable (for this purpose) it's what would be in the
current crop of electric cars as it's unbeatable on costs, but it isn't
(presumably because the volume/weight is a problem).

tim

"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 ?

"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