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?

"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

"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

"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 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....

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

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

Yes prisoner power is coming. Might as well use all that rioting energy and
pump it into the grid...:-)
Yes I know the treadmill was used years ago as a penal punishment and why
else do the gov want to opt out of human rights legislation?
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! :-)
"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"? And if you can see into the future, how about
telling
us next week's lottery numbers?


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 69th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

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....

What would you do with a time machine in any case. There would seem to be
only a one way trip in most accepted theories there is, and who would want
to go away for a year only to come back and find your daughter is older
than you?
As for Fusion. I'd stick my neck out and suggest it will never be possible
to create a fusion system capable of sus tained operation at an efficiency
where enough energy can be extracted to make it viable.
The actual temperatures needed will reduce anything near the heat source
to plasma or change it so substantially that you will not be able to get
that energy out. Of course as was demonstrated last evening, the more work
you try to do with any energy producing device the harder it is to operate
the device, in the case of fusion, if you had some miracle substance and
could use the heat and make it into electricity and use that energy, the
effect would be to make fusion more and more hard to sustain. If the laws of
nature as described really are true, this has to be the case, surely?

If you cannot use all the energy then a lot of waste energy has to be got
rid of somehow to stop the whole thing blowing up, and that too seems like a
probably very difficult thing to do without warming up the earth.


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! :-)
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-12-27, 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

Wrong. That's engineering.

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.

Haven't looked up lately?


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

Wrong.

http://www.space.com/28000-physicist...-theories.html


[10 lines snipped]

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

Please either switch this off or correct the separator (which should
be "-- newline". It's stupid and pointless.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 69th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-12-27, 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

Wrong. That's engineering.

as I went on to explain

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.

Haven't looked up lately?

very funny

tim




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

"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 27/12/2016 15:55, Huge wrote:
OTOH, no-one has even the faintest idea how to make a time machine.
Wrong.

http://www.space.com/28000-physicist...-theories.html

I think Thorne is wrong. The worm hole would connect in real time so
after 12 hours the connection with the space ship would be to where the
space ship was on its 10 year journey. Meanwhile communication between
the two would be impossible since for Carolee the trip lasted a mere 12
hours while Thorne was waiting for the return of his wife for a full 10
years. If they had been holding hands Thorne would have been dead for
some weeks before Carolee could release her grasp.

--
Roger Chapman

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 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 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 27/12/16 18:22, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What would you do with a time machine in any case.
I'd go back and kick Karl Marx in the nuts.

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 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

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

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
news
What would you do with a time machine in any case. There would seem to be
only a one way trip in most accepted theories there is, and who would
want to go away for a year only to come back and find your daughter is
older than you?
As for Fusion. I'd stick my neck out and suggest it will never be possible
to create a fusion system capable of sus tained operation at an efficiency
where enough energy can be extracted to make it viable.
The actual temperatures needed will reduce anything near the heat source
to plasma or change it so substantially that you will not be able to get
that energy out. Of course as was demonstrated last evening, the more work
you try to do with any energy producing device the harder it is to operate
the device, in the case of fusion, if you had some miracle substance and
could use the heat and make it into electricity and use that energy, the
effect would be to make fusion more and more hard to sustain. If the laws
of nature as described really are true, this has to be the case, surely?

If you cannot use all the energy then a lot of waste energy has to be got
rid of somehow to stop the whole thing blowing up, and that too seems like
a probably very difficult thing to do without warming up the earth.

Almost all energy produced warms up the earth.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-12-27, 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

Wrong. That's engineering.

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.

Haven't looked up lately?


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

Wrong.

http://www.space.com/28000-physicist...-theories.html


[10 lines snipped]

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

Please either switch this off or correct the separator (which should
be "-- newline". It's stupid and pointless.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 69th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

"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

"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

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.
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.

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.

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.


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.

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

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

On 28/12/16 00:30, 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

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?

They are

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

Its only you who is taken in.
tim

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 28/12/16 00:30, 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

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?

They are

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

Its only you who is taken in.

it most certainly is not (only me)

(you should have heard the two "idiots" on "The Papers" last night!)

tim

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.

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.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"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.

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

all those taxis and lorries would have to go

tim

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

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

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.

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

all those taxis and lorries would have to go

Don't forget most buses, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

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.

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.

Owain

On 28/12/16 16:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:03:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Don't confuse their pointy little heads with facts...

They don't want Facts, just Something To Believe In.

Bless!

On 28/12/16 16:45, wrote:
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 haven decided either. They are just following the path of
least resistance politically.

In article ,
charles wrote:
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.

Be great if you could compel the government to compensate for you simply
following their recommendation. ;-)

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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