On 08/02/2021 17:53, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Feb 2021 at 17:49:08 GMT, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 08/02/2021 17:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Feb 2021 at 16:32:11 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

They could mount the land-based windmills on giant concrete 'sleds'
running on rails. When it is windy the sled moves itself up the incline
and then has the capability to generate power as it runs back down
again ? :-)

Didn't I see a report about a US scheme that involved storing energy by having
a railway line going up a long slope (few miles IIRC) and allowing trucks with
20 ton blocks of concrete on to roll down the hill to generate volts as they
went?

Previous calcs showed 12.5E6 kg of this heavy liquid for 5000 m^3. If
that were replaced by concrete blocks at 670 kJ/kg to manufacture, then
that would equate to 342 of 200m trips worth of energy just to make the
concrete.

The energy needed to make concrete is about the same as the PE of that
concrete at a height of 67 km.

OK belay the concrete and use rocks from the cons doing hard labour in chokey.
The Yanks have 1000000 of them banged up so no shortage there.

A million of them will be able to give you about 100 MW. For a third of
the time, just like windmills.

On 08/02/2021 10:23, Theo wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
Snake oil. You would need to manufacture and handle it in enormous
quantities to store enough energy to be worthwhile. Liquid bromine is
the first thing that springs to mind with about that density. But it
doesn't match the non-reactive/non-corrosive tags.

Barium sulphate is used as a component of drilling mud because it has a
density 4.5x that of water. Mud ponds are something the oil industry already
knows how to deal with, although they aren't pretty. Drilling muds overall
go up to about 2.4x

It sounds a bit like the oil industry is in decline they're looking for a
new market for their existing product. Pumping drilling mud is something
they already do at scale.

Although it's really hard to compete with 'free' water. I wonder how big a
tank you would need for a decent sized battery at average UK hilliness?

Theo

Trivial to do the sums, all the dimensions for Dinorwic are in the
public domain, just add their magic density factor.

On 08/02/2021 11:03, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 08/02/2021 09:58, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/02/2021 08:42, polygonum_on_google wrote:
Anyone convinced?

Powering up: UK hills could be used as energy 'batteries'

Engineers explore using gentle slopes rather than steep dams or
mountains to store electricity

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ergy-batteries


Â*RheEnergise is bringing innovation to pumped hydro storage. We call
our new solution High-Density Hydro „¢.

HD Hydro „¢ uses our proprietary HD Fluid R-19 „¢, which has 2.5x the
density of water. R-19 gives RheEnergise projects 2.5x the power and
2.5x the energy when compared to water.

https://www.rheenergise.com/

I wonder what their proprietary HD Fluid R-19 „¢ actually is?

Snake oil. You would need to manufacture and handle it in enormous
quantities to store enough energy to be worthwhile. Liquid bromine is
the first thing that springs to mind with about that density. But it
doesn't match the non-reactive/non-corrosive tags.

Gallium would be even better nearly 6x the denisty of water and melts
at about 40C. Relatively benign otherwise.

They claim: Our innovative fluid R-19 TM is environmentally benign
and has been engineered to be non-reactive and non-corrosive.
Â*Â*R-19 TM is an odd choice of name for a eco ******** product.

It signifies hazardous risk of forming organic peroxides in chemistry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R-phrases#R19


Go the whole hog and use Mercury.

Current annual production, 4000 tonnes or 300 cubic metres.

On 08/02/2021 17:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
There must be a way to use that energy to make some hydrocarbon
(methane ?) and then transport that when needed ?

It doesn't generate energy, it just stores it.

On 08/02/2021 08:42, polygonum_on_google wrote:
I wonder what their proprietary HD Fluid R-19 „¢ actually is?

Reading the Grauniad - Mud. "A dense mineral rich suspension".

Andy

Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Feb 2021 at 16:32:11 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

They could mount the land-based windmills on giant concrete 'sleds'
running on rails. When it is windy the sled moves itself up the incline
and then has the capability to generate power as it runs back down
again ? :-)

Didn't I see a report about a US scheme that involved storing energy by having
a railway line going up a long slope (few miles IIRC) and allowing trucks with
20 ton blocks of concrete on to roll down the hill to generate volts as they
went?


There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses

Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/

It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

The truck never needs to be charged, and in fact
at night, it needs to empty the battery out so
there is room for charging it via regeneration,
the next day. The truck drives uphill empty, and
that takes less energy than is regeneratively
generated by driving downhill with a full load
in the back. All thanks to electric motors that
function as motors or as generators.

Paul

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Feb 2021 at 16:32:11 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

They could mount the land-based windmills on giant concrete 'sleds'
running on rails. When it is windy the sled moves itself up the incline
and then has the capability to generate power as it runs back down
again ? :-)

Didn't I see a report about a US scheme that involved storing energy
by having
a railway line going up a long slope (few miles IIRC) and allowing
trucks with
20 ton blocks of concrete on to roll down the hill to generate volts
as they
went?


There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses


Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/


It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

The truck never needs to be charged, and in fact
at night, it needs to empty the battery out so
there is room for charging it via regeneration,
the next day. The truck drives uphill empty, and
that takes less energy than is regeneratively
generated by driving downhill with a full load
in the back. All thanks to electric motors that
function as motors or as generators.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

I would expect a large proportion to have a more traditional arrangement
where rock needs to be hauled out of a big hole in the ground, rather
than the transportation of a mountain top down hill!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 08/02/2021 18:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:59:20 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

There must be a way to use that energy to make some hydrocarbon
(methane ?) and then transport that when needed ?

Doesn't fit in wires though ...

No. But it is stored energy that's relatively easy to transport and use.

I have no idea of the chemistry involved. But we start with:

Carbon+hydrogen+energy- [x]-ane.

You will lose some energy, obviously. But Carbon in, Carbon out should
make it fairly planet friendly ?

I wonder if we'd be wasting time here if we'd started that 25 years ago.

we started it over 100 years ago.

When we had a lot of *carbon* and not enough gas.

What you meant was CO2 and 2 x H20 in and CH4 and O4 out....



--
€œThe urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.€�
€“ H. L. Mencken

On 09/02/2021 09:55, John Rumm wrote:
On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Feb 2021 at 16:32:11 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

They could mount the land-based windmills on giant concrete 'sleds'
running on rails. When it is windy the sled moves itself up the incline
and then has the capability to generate power as it runs back down
again ? :-)

Didn't I see a report about a US scheme that involved storing energy
by having
a railway line going up a long slope (few miles IIRC) and allowing
trucks with
20 ton blocks of concrete on to roll down the hill to generate volts
as they
went?


There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses


Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/


It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

The truck never needs to be charged, and in fact
at night, it needs to empty the battery out so
there is room for charging it via regeneration,
the next day. The truck drives uphill empty, and
that takes less energy than is regeneratively
generated by driving downhill with a full load
in the back. All thanks to electric motors that
function as motors or as generators.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

I would expect a large proportion to have a more traditional arrangement
where rock needs to be hauled out of a big hole in the ground, rather
than the transportation of a mountain top down hill!

Which still doesn't mean that the bottom of the quarry isn't higher than
the surrounding land that the trucks are taking it to, with loads being
transported up from the quarry to the exit and then back down further
than it came up.

Jethro_uk wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you meant was CO2 and 2 x H20 in and CH4 and O4 out....

That's one way. The point being we have centuries experience of
transporting hydrocarbons against a few weeks of grappling with the pixie
dust that are renewables.

There's all-sorts of processes you *can* use for syngas/synfuel, germans
did it in the war, fine for no expense spared military use.

But unless we are awash with "spare" electricity, then grabbing CO2 out
of the air adding water and turning it into methane looks wasteful, as
opposed to a great way of turning electricity into burny chemicals.

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 12:02:58 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

But unless we are awash with "spare" electricity, then grabbing CO2 out
of the air adding water and turning it into methane looks wasteful, as
opposed to a great way of turning electricity into burny chemicals.

I did say there would be some wastage.

And while hardly "awash" the question remains - and hasn't changed in 3
generations - is how to actually make practical use of "renewables" which
are hardly known for their predictability.

Current thinking (see "smart meters" thread) is to abandon all pretence
of even trying and to force the market to adapt to the supply. Which even
the former USSR would have rejected as a bit too much.

I think theres a big difference between a system imposed upon people
without any choice and a system that incentivises shifting power
consumption through variable tariffs, appliance remote control etc.

As youve pointed out, we dont really have enough good power storage
solutions to balance out the renewables but ceding some control of domestic
power consumption could be an easy and relatively cheap way of dealing with
some of the issues caused by very high short term peaks in demand.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 09/02/2021 12:02, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you meant was CO2 and 2 x H20 in and CH4Â* and O4 out....

That's one way. The point being we have centuries experience of
transporting hydrocarbons against a few weeks of grappling with the pixie
dust that are renewables.

There's all-sorts of processes you *can* use for syngas/synfuel, germans
did it in the war, fine for no expense spared military use.

they used coal as the starting point.
SASOL did it during S African embargo as well

Town gas/water gas/producer gas/co9al gas are all coal- flammable gas
products.




But unless we are awash with "spare" electricity, then grabbing CO2 out
of the air adding water and turning it into methane looks wasteful, as
opposed to a great way of turning electricity into burny chemicals.


That entirely depends.

Liquid hydrocarbons, given the abundance of atmospheric oxygen, are a
great way to store energy.

If the price of fossil fuel exceeds the price of synthetic hydrocarbons
due to scarcity of fossil and inevitability of nuclear power, then it
makes total sense to fly your planes off them. And use off peak nuclear
power to make them

Its all about getting nuclear power down to a sort of 2p a unit cost
that it is in fact capable of.

If you rewrote the regulations.

even at 50% efficiency that's 40p a litre for SynJet„¢ :-)

Look I have been over all the solutions many times and the only one that
begins to make sense is a mixture of nuclear, (pumped) hydro, and
synthetic fuels. Fossil wont last forever, but there's thousands of
years of fertile heavy metals out there for nuclear power.

All these other solutions are reworking of mediaeval technology that was
abandoned years ago because its crap.

The only new technology is solar panels. But without uber cheap storage
its pretty ****ing useless.




--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 09/02/2021 12:30, Chris Hogg wrote:
Either it'll be obvious that CO2 has very
little effect on global temperatures and nobody will be interested in
it anymore, or we will actually have passed the tipping point (for the
nth time!) and the climate will be in thermal run-away.

I think that what will happen in the next decade is that
- people will realise, but will never admit, that CO2 induced global
warming was a marketing scam.
- people will realise, and will admit, that renewable energy is a very
expensive way of achieving almost no carbon reductionist at all.
- people will realise that a lot of fossil fuel comes with a Koran and
middle eastern immigrants bolted on, and would rather it didn't.
- people will realise that in fact nuclear power is here, works, and
could be a lot cheaper if it was deregulated to the point of common sense.
- at some point synthetic fuels will become as cheap as fossil fuels.



--
€œThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 09/02/2021 13:22, Jethro_uk wrote:


And while hardly "awash" the question remains - and hasn't changed in 3
generations - is how to actually make practical use of "renewables" which
are hardly known for their predictability.


No, that is not the question at all.

That is what they want you to THINK is the question...
The real question is 'why, when LCOE of a nuclear grid is *way* cheaper
than renewables did we ever subsidise a single renewable at all?


Current thinking (see "smart meters" thread) is to abandon all pretence
of even trying and to force the market to adapt to the supply. Which even
the former USSR would have rejected as a bit too much.

Start from a **** solution and pile on more expensive crap.
and claim you are 'creating green jobs'

When were a boy a job was a euphemism for a pile of poo.

and 'green' meant 'gullible'


(Similar to the recent suggestions that the solution to fishing woes is
for the UK market to completely reinvent itself by getting consumers to
be happy with what they are getting).

Slow moving weights. Fast moving salesmen - it's a spivs game with the
public paying for it.

Ecology was entirely bought ought by commercial and political interests
in the mid 1970s. Since then its been a way to justify central
government control of the biggest world market. Energy. And subsidise
cronies.



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 09/02/2021 13:41, Tim+ wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 12:02:58 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

But unless we are awash with "spare" electricity, then grabbing CO2 out
of the air adding water and turning it into methane looks wasteful, as
opposed to a great way of turning electricity into burny chemicals.

I did say there would be some wastage.

And while hardly "awash" the question remains - and hasn't changed in 3
generations - is how to actually make practical use of "renewables" which
are hardly known for their predictability.

Current thinking (see "smart meters" thread) is to abandon all pretence
of even trying and to force the market to adapt to the supply. Which even
the former USSR would have rejected as a bit too much.

I think theres a big difference between a system imposed upon people
without any choice and a system that incentivises shifting power
consumption through variable tariffs, appliance remote control etc.

As youve pointed out, we dont really have enough good power storage
solutions to balance out the renewables but ceding some control of domestic
power consumption could be an easy and relatively cheap way of dealing with
some of the issues caused by very high short term peaks in demand.

well yes. If a lot or electricity goes on heating, then storage of heat
- low grade heat - is simple enough

Storage heaters would have worked if the concrete in them had been ten
times the mass.

Or there had been a 100,000 litre tank of warm water under the floor.

That is something you can do in new builds - increase thermal mass and
run heating when power is cheap.

But storage of power outside of water up a mountain, if you have te
water and et mountain, is simply uneconomic.

it would be cheaper to throw away all intermittent renewables and spend
the money on standardised massed produced nukes.

And use off peak surpluses to make synthetic kerosene and diesel


Tim



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses


Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/


It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 09/02/2021 14:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/2021 12:02, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you meant was CO2 and 2 x H20 in and CH4Â* and O4 out....

That's one way. The point being we have centuries experience of
transporting hydrocarbons against a few weeks of grappling with the
pixie
dust that are renewables.

There's all-sorts of processes you *can* use for syngas/synfuel,
germans did it in the war, fine for no expense spared military use.

they used coal as the starting point.
SASOL did it during S African embargo as well

Town gas/water gas/producer gas/co9al gas are allÂ* coal- flammable gas
products.




But unless we are awash with "spare" electricity, then grabbing CO2
out of the air adding water and turning it into methane looks
wasteful, as opposed to a great way of turning electricity into burny
chemicals.


That entirely depends.

Liquid hydrocarbons, given the abundance of atmospheric oxygen, are a
great way to store energy.

If the price of fossil fuel exceeds the price of synthetic hydrocarbons
due to scarcity of fossil and inevitability of nuclear power, then it
makes total sense to fly your planes off them. And use off peak nuclear
power to make them

Its all about getting nuclear power down to a sort of 2p a unit cost
that it is in fact capable of.

If you rewrote the regulations.

even at 50% efficiency that's 40p a litre for SynJet„¢ :-)

Look I have been over all the solutions many times and the only one that
begins to make sense is a mixture of nuclear, (pumped) hydro, and
synthetic fuels. Fossil wont last forever, but there's thousands of
years of fertile heavy metals out there for nuclear power.

All these other solutions are reworking of mediaeval technology that was
abandoned years ago because its crap.

The only new technology is solar panels. But without uber cheap storage
its pretty ****ing useless.




Not if there are enough massive arrays all around the globe, inter-
connected with HVDC links.
Technically ?possible, politically impossible, and expensive.

On 09/02/2021 15:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses


Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/


It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris

Even more fun, use those handy zip-wires that are installed
to send the stuff down.

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:17:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is something you can do in new builds - increase thermal mass and
run heating when power is cheap.

Which is counter to the practice of using less and less material to build
houses (see story about new build **** walls I posted ...)

indeed.


To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done it"
too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You can't get
more carbon friendly that *growing* a house.

yep

massive wall insulation, and a huge thermal store - just a tank of water
will do.




--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 09/02/2021 16:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:59:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:17:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is something you can do in new builds - increase thermal mass and
run heating when power is cheap.

Which is counter to the practice of using less and less material to
build houses (see story about new build **** walls I posted ...)

indeed.


To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done
it" too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You
can't get more carbon friendly that *growing* a house.

yep

massive wall insulation, and a huge thermal store - just a tank of water
will do.

Hmmmm

Quite aside from containment issues, and the amazing ability of water to
harbour nasties, imagine it freezing .....

well you put it in a plastic cylindrical tank with an air gap for
expansion surround it with insulation and feed it with electricity to
make sure it doesn't freeze and it is sealed and filled with the
equivalent of fernox to stop it being a life support system.

It is what is generally called a 'heat bank' just done bigger. Could be
in your loft...




--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Tim Streater wrote:
On 09 Feb 2021 at 13:41:37 GMT, Tim+ wrote:

As youve pointed out, we dont really have enough good power storage
solutions to balance out the renewables but ceding some control of domestic
power consumption could be an easy and relatively cheap way of dealing with
some of the issues caused by very high short term peaks in demand.

Replace "enough good" with "any".


So pump storage doesnt exist? Admittedly only any use for short term grid
fluctuations, but that was what I was talking about.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/2021 16:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:59:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:17:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is something you can do in new builds - increase thermal mass and
run heating when power is cheap.

Which is counter to the practice of using less and less material to
build houses (see story about new build **** walls I posted ...)

indeed.


To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done
it" too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You
can't get more carbon friendly that *growing* a house.

yep

massive wall insulation, and a huge thermal store - just a tank of water
will do.

Hmmmm

Quite aside from containment issues, and the amazing ability of water to
harbour nasties, imagine it freezing .....

well you put it in a plastic cylindrical tank with an air gap for
expansion surround it with insulation and feed it with electricity to
make sure it doesn't freeze and it is sealed and filled with the
equivalent of fernox to stop it being a life support system.

It is what is generally called a 'heat bank' just done bigger. Could be
in your loft...


Surely better *under* your house if you want a decent size store?

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 08/02/2021 13:44, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 08/02/2021 08:42, polygonum_on_google wrote:
Anyone convinced?

Powering up: UK hills could be used as energy 'batteries'

snipped

Figures from BBC article...

'Bigger than Olympic swimming pool'.Â* Say twice as big, so 5000 m^3

'2.5 x density of water' so 12500 T or 12.5E6 kg

'200m high' so 200 * 12.5E6 * 9.81 joules = 24.5E9 J


I wonder how large a clock spring would have to be to store 24.5 GJ -
they're pretty efficient. Would it fit in the same volume as the
tarn-battery discussed?

Genuine question, not a wind-up.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done it"
too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You can't get
more carbon friendly that*growing* a house.

Two thoughts:
- Walls that thick are going to use quite a bit of extra land
- Isn't there a teeny issue with fire?

Andy
--
My roof is thatched, so I think about fire...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
On 09 Feb 2021 at 18:02:50 GMT, Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 17:44:28 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done
it"
too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You can't
get more carbon friendly that*growing* a house.
Two thoughts:
- Walls that thick are going to use quite a bit of extra land

and ? Plenty of land in the UK. Don't fall for this myth that we are in
any way overpopulated ...

And it's all in use,

Bull****.

and yes, we are overpopulated.

Bull****.

And you are free to top yourself any time you like.

In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done it"
too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You can't get
more carbon friendly that*growing* a house.

Two thoughts:
- Walls that thick are going to use quite a bit of extra land
- Isn't there a teeny issue with fire?

Three thoughts if you include providing excellent homes for Mice and
Rats:-)

--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 05:23:25 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 09/02/2021 16:37, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/2021 16:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:59:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:17:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is something you can do in new builds - increase thermal mass and
run heating when power is cheap.

Which is counter to the practice of using less and less material to
build houses (see story about new build **** walls I posted ...)

indeed.


To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done
it" too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You
can't get more carbon friendly that *growing* a house.

yep

massive wall insulation, and a huge thermal store - just a tank of water
will do.

Hmmmm

Quite aside from containment issues, and the amazing ability of water to
harbour nasties, imagine it freezing .....

well you put it in a plastic cylindrical tank with an air gap for
expansion surround it with insulation and feed it with electricity to
make sure it doesn't freeze and it is sealed and filled with the
equivalent of fernox to stop it being a life support system.

It is what is generally called a 'heat bank' just done bigger. Could be
in your loft...


Surely better *under* your house if you want a decent size store?

that's why I said 'could'
Obviously in a new build you stick it under ground



Tim



--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 09/02/2021 18:02, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 17:44:28 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done
it"
too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You can't
get more carbon friendly that*growing* a house.

Two thoughts:
- Walls that thick are going to use quite a bit of extra land

and ? Plenty of land in the UK. Don't fall for this myth that we are in
any way overpopulated ...

England's population density at 432/sq km is 33rd in the world, and only
just behind India.

If you ignore the city states like Singapore it's 8th of the countries
with over 10M.

The UK as a whole is 16th. There's a lot of empty Scotland and Wales.

France has well under a 3rd of the density of England.

- Isn't
there a teeny issue with fire?

No - it's fire resistant.

That's a surprise to me. Our roof is made of the same stuff, and we have
to be _very_ careful. No wiring in the loft, for example.

Andy

On 09/02/2021 15:35, Andrew wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses



Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/



It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris

Even more fun, use those handy zip-wires that are installed
to send the stuff down.

Am I the only one now thinking about the Fred Dibnah's arrangement with
self counterbalancing milk churns on a cable for getting stuff down from
high chimneys?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 11/02/2021 10:16, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:35, Andrew wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses



Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/



It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw
material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris

Even more fun, use those handy zip-wires that are installed
to send the stuff down.

Am I the only one now thinking about the Fred Dibnah's arrangement with
self counterbalancing milk churns on a cable for getting stuff down from
high chimneys?

Now you've got me thinking about "Murphy and the bricks".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np8iLIt7G0A

Jethro_uk wrote:

I often wonder how efficient you can make a circular transport like that.
Like lifts in buildings that should need hardly any energy if the
lift+load is never much more than lift+counterweight ....


Well, the Falkirk Wheel boat lift is reputed to use no more than an
electric kettle (3kW say) to lift a load of 500 tonnes.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 11/02/2021 10:16, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:35, Andrew wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses



Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/



It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw
material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris

Even more fun, use those handy zip-wires that are installed
to send the stuff down.

Am I the only one now thinking about the Fred Dibnah's arrangement with
self counterbalancing milk churns on a cable for getting stuff down from
high chimneys?


I must have missed that, but I remember Hoffnungs brickie lament

https://monologues.co.uk/Sketches/Bricklayers_Story.htm

On 09/02/2021 16:37, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/2021 16:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:59:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:17:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is something you can do in new builds - increase thermal mass and
run heating when power is cheap.

Which is counter to the practice of using less and less material to
build houses (see story about new build **** walls I posted ...)

indeed.


To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done
it" too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You
can't get more carbon friendly that *growing* a house.

yep

massive wall insulation, and a huge thermal store - just a tank of water
will do.

Hmmmm

Quite aside from containment issues, and the amazing ability of water to
harbour nasties, imagine it freezing .....

well you put it in a plastic cylindrical tank with an air gap for
expansion surround it with insulation and feed it with electricity to
make sure it doesn't freeze and it is sealed and filled with the
equivalent of fernox to stop it being a life support system.

It is what is generally called a 'heat bank' just done bigger. Could be
in your loft...


Surely better *under* your house if you want a decent size store?

Tim

https://www.granddesignsmagazine.com...-heating-house

I wonder how warm it has been this last couple of weeks though ?.

On 09/02/2021 18:39, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 09/02/2021 15:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
To much of everything is held back by "this is how we've always done it"
too. AIUI straw bales can make terrific two storey houses. You can't get
more carbon friendly that*growing*Â* a house.

Two thoughts:
- Walls that thick are going to use quite a bit of extra land
- Isn't there a teeny issue with fire?

Three thoughts if you include providing excellent homes for Mice and
Rats:-)


Cob is very effective in Devon. More fire resistant then
straw bales, but both wall types need to be lime rendered
to keep the rain out.

On 11/02/2021 11:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:56:39 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

I often wonder how efficient you can make a circular transport like
that.
Like lifts in buildings that should need hardly any energy if the
lift+load is never much more than lift+counterweight ....


Well, the Falkirk Wheel boat lift is reputed to use no more than an
electric kettle (3kW say) to lift a load of 500 tonnes.

It's on a very long list of things to see before I die ...

Pretty certain I read that Tower Bridge was operated with a gallon of
water or something similar ...

No. IIRC it is a 100 ton weight sitting on a column of water. The water
is pumped in by electric pump (used to be steam) and left there until
needed.

When the bridge needs opening, the bridge is lifted by hydraulic motors,
powered by the weight pushing the water. The column stores enough to
open the bridge twice.

A simple way to use low powered pumps to slowly store energy, that can
then be used rapidly when needed.

On 11/02/2021 12:41, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/02/2021 11:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:56:39 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

I often wonder how efficient you can make a circular transport like
that.
Like lifts in buildings that should need hardly any energy if the
lift+load is never much more than lift+counterweight ....


Well, the Falkirk Wheel boat lift is reputed to use no more than an
electric kettle (3kW say) to lift a load of 500 tonnes.

It's on a very long list of things to see before I die ...

Pretty certain I read that Tower Bridge was operated with a gallon of
water or something similar ...

No. IIRC it is a 100 ton weight sitting on a column of water. The water
is pumped in by electric pump (used to be steam) and left there until
needed.

When the bridge needs opening, the bridge is lifted by hydraulic motors,
powered by the weight pushing the water. The column stores enough to
open the bridge twice.

A simple way to use low powered pumps to slowly store energy, that can
then be used rapidly when needed.

Tower bridge was operated by the high pressure water ring main that
opened/closed all the lock gates in docklands nearby.
It was also used to power all the big bed lifts are St Bartholomews
Hospital. When I worked there in the 1970's this supply was
shut down and the hospital had to spend over a million pounds (in 1970
money) to replace all these lifts.
Colt Telecom bought the redundant pipework and ran their fibre optic
cables inside them.

On 11/02/2021 14:35, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2021 12:41, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/02/2021 11:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:56:39 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

I often wonder how efficient you can make a circular transport like
that.
Like lifts in buildings that should need hardly any energy if the
lift+load is never much more than lift+counterweight ....


Well, the Falkirk Wheel boat lift is reputed to use no more than an
electric kettle (3kW say) to lift a load of 500 tonnes.

It's on a very long list of things to see before I die ...

Pretty certain I read that Tower Bridge was operated with a gallon of
water or something similar ...

No. IIRC it is a 100 ton weight sitting on a column of water. The
water is pumped in by electric pump (used to be steam) and left there
until needed.

When the bridge needs opening, the bridge is lifted by hydraulic
motors, powered by the weight pushing the water. The column stores
enough to open the bridge twice.

A simple way to use low powered pumps to slowly store energy, that can
then be used rapidly when needed.

Tower bridge was operated by the high pressure water ring main that
opened/closed all the lock gates in docklands nearby.
It was also used to power all the big bed lifts are St Bartholomews
Hospital. When I worked there in the 1970's this supply was
shut down and the hospital had to spend over a million pounds (in 1970
money) to replace all these lifts.
Colt Telecom bought the redundant pipework and ran their fibre optic
cables inside them.

I don't think Tower Bridge has ever been connected to a ring main. It
was built with two steam engines to fill the accumulator. A third was
added during WW2. All three were replaced by electric pumps in the 1970s.

On 11/02/2021 11:23, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2021 10:16, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:35, Andrew wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...y-than-it-uses



Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ctric-vehicle/



It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw
material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris

Even more fun, use those handy zip-wires that are installed
to send the stuff down.

Am I the only one now thinking about the Fred Dibnah's arrangement
with self counterbalancing milk churns on a cable for getting stuff
down from high chimneys?


I must have missed that, but I remember Hoffnungs brickie lament

https://monologues.co.uk/Sketches/Bricklayers_Story.htm


Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezX_o0H5FuE


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
On 11/02/2021 11:23, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2021 10:16, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:35, Andrew wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

On 08/02/2021 22:35, Paul wrote:

There's this one

https://www.ien.com/product-developm...121ton-ev-can-
generate-more-energy-than-it-uses



Might be the same one.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...mp-truck-will-
be-the-worlds-biggest-electric-vehicle/



It's a transportation job, with net energy output.

I wonder how many quarrys have that kind of setup where the raw
material
needs to be transported *down* from the quarry?

Shame the welsh slate quarries are no longer in bulk production,
or you could update the old solution of a horse drawing the
empties uphill, and gravity taking everything down laden.

Chris

Even more fun, use those handy zip-wires that are installed
to send the stuff down.

Am I the only one now thinking about the Fred Dibnah's arrangement
with self counterbalancing milk churns on a cable for getting stuff
down from high chimneys?


I must have missed that, but I remember Hoffnungs brickie lament

https://monologues.co.uk/Sketches/Bricklayers_Story.htm


Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezX_o0H5FuE

And how he got that scaffolding up there single handed!, amazing
bloke!...



--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.