On 17/04/2022 16:07, Steve Walker wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 15:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>>> themselves obsolete.
>>>
>>> Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.
>>
>> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
>> context of energy production and use?
>> Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
>> and unchangeable? If so, that will be very reassuring for some.
>
> Laws are that simply because they have either stood the test of time or
> been calculated to be correct. Theories change as new evidence is found.
>
> You cannot change the laws of physics and therefore there are absolute
> limits of efficiencies, outputs, storage, etc.
>
> You can find better ways of, for instance, storing energy, but when you
> have already selected the materials with the best properties, you cannot
> improve their effectiveness beyond the limit that physics sets upon
> them. So you might be able to improve a battery's capacity or a PV
> cell's output to closer to the absolute limit, but you can't improve
> that limit.

+1

On 17/04/2022 15:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2022 08:56:52 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> To what new science do you refer?
> The science that will supercede the science which claims that fossil
> fuel and nuclear power are the only realistic way to produce adequate
> amounts of energy.

Then you are not talking about science here. Science doesn't make
claims. Science comes up with theories, and tests them against observation.

People make claims. A lot of them daft.

On 17/04/2022 15:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2022 08:56:52 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> To what new science do you refer?
> The science that will supercede the science which claims that fossil
> fuel and nuclear power are the only realistic way to produce adequate
> amounts of energy.

supersede.

Precisely which 'science' are you referring to ?.

All the available facts, science and physics confirms that the only
way to guarantee that the NHS will have power @ 230V and 50Hz, 24/7
is to generate that power with fossil fuels or nuclear fission.

You can use wind and solar together with gas, coal and biomess if
you wish, but you will *never* be able to rely on just wind and solar
*here in the UK* (other countries might have a better chance).

On 17/04/2022 13:55, Andrew wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 09:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>> themselves obsolete.
>
> You really don't understand basic physics or sums do you ?.
>
> There is nothing 'specialist' about energy density, battery
> capacity or the absolute need that the world has for a
> constant, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.
>
> Wind and solar fail on all three counts.

"The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise. It's
about what *people* expect and will tolerate. "Saving the planet" is not
a binary choice. Humans have been changing it significantly for more
than ten thousand years.

Currently, a proportion of people believe the "irretrievable breakdown
without net zero" theory. Political pressure is dictating energy
strategies that are already having adverse consequences in terms of
electricity price. These will adapt depending on the impacts that they
have, and anyone who claims they can predict the outcomes is either a
liar, or deluded.

As you say, you can't buck the physical limits. But over time we could,
theoretically, transition to a medieval society where all energy sources
are "sustainable" (whatever that means). Leave out fission and fusion,
and you end up with a much smaller UK population. Allow nuclear and a
bit of fossil, then who knows.

On 17 Apr 2022 at 15:31:55 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.
>
> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
> context of energy production and use?
> Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
> and unchangeable? If so, that will be very reassuring for some.

Physics "changes", as you put it, in response to discrepancies between theory
and observation. Newton's theory of gravity, which describes, for example, how
objects move relative to one another in our solar system, works so well that
it's all NASA needs when shoving probes from Earth to anywhere in the solar
system, with great accuracy. However, wait a few centuries and observation
shows that Mercury, which is quite near the Sun, is not quite in the expected
place. To fix that required Einstein to come up with General Relativity, which
gets a better answer, and which simplifies down to Newton if you are not close
to a very large massive object, like a star.

Similarly, 19thC physicists tried to come up with all sorts of strange ideas
to explain that, if you measure the speed of light as the Earth is going
towards a star because of where it is in its orbit, then wait six months until
the Earth is the other side of its orbit, and repeat the experiment with the
same star, you get an identical result. This was unexpected and inexplicable
until Einstein came up with Special Relativity.

Then there's light: is it made up of particles or waves? You can do
experiments to prove the first (photo-electric effect) and the second
(diffraction). So we need quantum theory too.

And yes, we already know that physics has to change some more, because quantum
theory and General Relativity don't like each other. So new theories are
required.

It would surprise me if any new theories led to anything in the context of
energy production and use. The maximum efficiency of solar cells can't be more
than 100%, because that means all the solar energy that falls ona panel is
converted to electricity. So I'm not interested in a few % increase in panel
efficiency.

Batteries might get a little better than today. The elements which you use to
make them, such as lithium, are well understood in terms of how theory
predicts their behaviour and chemistry, so new surprises likely there. And
there are no new elements. We've got 92 well known ones, with a smidge of
plutonium here and there, some of which is brand new, and some of which dates
from the dawn of time.

Your mistake is to believe that reaching your desired solution is a
scientific/technical problem. It's not: it's a *human* problem, it's your
fervent desire to believe that renewables are the way to go and why oh why
can't I supply all the power the grid needs from a couple of AA batteries.
Once you abandon this desire, and instead look at how things really are and
really work, you might do better.

--
The reason you think government is the solution is because you think freedom is the problem. But the truth is that government ensures that the most evil, ruthless people end up in control, because the state is a single point of failure, and a high-value target of corruption.

Alan Lovejoy

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:02:46 +0100, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>themselves obsolete.

Doing sums is not the only thing you can't do. Understanding science
and how it works is another.

New scientists stand on the shoulders of old scientists (apologies to
Newton). Without the foundations of old science there would be no new
science. New scientists cannot simply throw over all the findings that
have gone before, and magically discover a whole lot of new stuff.
Yes, advances will be made in certain areas, but there are theoretical
and practical limits to how far those advances can be made.

Lithium batteries are close to the limit for storage and density,
based on the basic properties of lithium (valency, EMF and density)
which aren't going to change.

The efficiency solar panels to convert sunlight to electricity is
limited by the Shockley–Queisser law to about 70% in multi-layer
arrangements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

The amount of energy you can extract from wind is limited by Betz's
law to about 60%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law

One day we may develop fusion power, but again that's nothing new and
the fundamentals are understood and have been for several decades.

There will be no magic discoveries that save us all, except in your
fantasy-land.

--
Chris

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:51:17 +1000, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/04/2022 09:13, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2022 20:09:47 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> If this Cam Witten has done the right thing and his 7GW is actual
>>>> output, and assuming an optimistic capacity factor of 15%, that means
>>>> he's got a boilerplate figure of 46.7GW worth of panels available
>>>> (7,000,000,000/0.15). At 300 watts per panel (a fairly typical figure,
>>>> it seems), that's around 156 million panels stashed away somewhere
>>>> looking for homes (46,700,000,000/300 = 156 million). Really??!! But
>>>> somehow I don't believe any of it. I'm sure Mike Halmarack believes it
>>>> all, but then he doesn't do sums.
>>>
>>> Faith is all that matters.
>> Faith that science will come up with solutions to problems despite the
>> dogged resistance of the scientific status quo.
>
> Cue Donald Rumsfeld. "It's the unknown unknowns ...."

> Dream on for that 'scientific breakthrough' (meanwhile carry on breeding
> the planet to extinction)

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...

> because unless the laws of physics that you
> simply don't seem to understand or accept, are broken or bent, then
> there the only solution to the planets problems would be a global
> pandemic to remove 2/3rd of the human race.

No pandemic has ever done that, not even the bubonic plague

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 00:31:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.
>
> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
> context of energy production and use?

Correct.

> Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
> and unchangeable?

Near enough at that level. Yes, that Einstein fella did show that
Newton's Laws weren't completely accurate at close to the speed
of light, but even the best EVs don't manage to go that fast.

> If so, that will be very reassuring for some.

newshound <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote
> Andrew wrote
>> Mike Halmarack wrote

>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>> You really don't understand basic physics or sums do you ?.
>> There is nothing 'specialist' about energy density, battery
>> capacity or the absolute need that the world has for a
>> constant, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.
>> Wind and solar fail on all three counts.
>
>
> "The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise. It's
> about what *people* expect and will tolerate. "Saving the planet" is not
> a binary choice. Humans have been changing it significantly for more
> than ten thousand years.

For far longer than that in fact, even when they were just hunter
gatherers.

There is quite a bit of evidence that the australian aboriginese extincted
the mega fauna with their deliberate use of fire to modify the natural
state
of the environment.

> Currently, a proportion of people believe the "irretrievable breakdown
> without net zero" theory. Political pressure is dictating energy
> strategies that are already having adverse consequences in terms of
> electricity price. These will adapt depending on the impacts that they
> have, and anyone who claims they can predict the outcomes is either a
> liar, or deluded.

> As you say, you can't buck the physical limits. But over time we could,
> theoretically, transition to a medieval society where all energy sources
> are "sustainable" (whatever that means).

Or even return to just hunting and gathering and watching your
kid die in severe drought etc.

> Leave out fission and fusion, and you end up with a much smaller UK
> population. Allow nuclear and a bit of fossil, then who knows.

On 11/04/2022 17:25, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> then adapt to the limitations.

Fuck off. We live in an age when science and technology has made us all
rich beyond the dreams of avarice in terms of comfort and convenience,
compared to pre-industrial times. All this was built on the back of
fossil fuels.

I know that the greenies plan to take the population back to the 16th
century by the use of the frog boiling trick, but it won't work, and one
day ordinary people will rise up.

Bill

On 11/04/2022 18:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:

>> Reduce the population to 5m, and go back to the stone age?
>
> Of course not. Lets keep growing and reproducing faster and faster
> until we go pop.
>
>> Stop waving you hands in the air, and show us the sums!
>
> I'd rather be waving than drowning.
>
> Explain the problems in detail and I'll see if I can do the sums.
> Though there are those better equipped and currently working at it.

You utterly hopeless daft bugger! How have you survived long enough to
learn to read and write?

Bill

On 12/04/2022 09:26, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
> of hysterical uncertainty.

No it's a measure of irritation at your pig headedness.

>
> I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
> Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
> avaricious tory politicians

Are avaricious Labour politicians OK then?

Bill

On 17/04/2022 09:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
> themselves obsolete.

That's why we won't see sense about AGW until all the existing guys have
safely got their pensions and retired.

Bill

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 03:17:24 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 18:00, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>>> Reduce the population to 5m, and go back to the stone age?
>>
>> Of course not. Lets keep growing and reproducing faster and faster
>> until we go pop.
>>
>>> Stop waving you hands in the air, and show us the sums!
>>
>> I'd rather be waving than drowning.
>>
>> Explain the problems in detail and I'll see if I can do the sums.
>> Though there are those better equipped and currently working at it.
>
>You utterly hopeless daft bugger! How have you survived long enough to
>learn to read and write?
>
>Bill

Don't worry Bill. As I think someone else has pointed out, he is the
absolutely classic example of Dunning-Kruger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

--
Chris

On 17/04/2022 15:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.
>
> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
> context of energy production and use?

Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
fusion etc.

And some better understandings of why batteries don't work.
The laws of physics around windmills haven't changed since they were
first invented in the dark ages - or earlier.

> Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
> and unchangeable? If so, that will be very reassuring for some.

No, but it is inconceivable that know restrictions that have existed for
hundreds of years suddenly disappear.

What you do not understand is the vast difference between science and
technology as described by people trying to sell you shiny shit, and
science and technology as it is practised by real people with real life
problems to solve.

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 17/04/2022 15:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2022 08:56:52 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>> themselves obsolete.
>>
>> To what new science do you refer?

> The science that will supercede the science which claims that fossil
> fuel and nuclear power are the only realistic way to produce adequate
> amounts of energy.

I see your English is as hopeless as your science.
So what exactly is this science which will supersede?
Magic Unicorns?

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 03:40:36 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On 17/04/2022 09:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>> themselves obsolete.
>
>That's why we won't see sense about AGW until all the existing guys have
>safely got their pensions and retired.
>
>Bill

This thread is educational but I don't think I can wait that long
--

Mike

Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and
> engineers don't like new science that makes their specialist
> fields and themselves obsolete.

You believe wrong. New science is interesting, and creates
new opportunities for new work. Even if you sometimes might
have to get a graduate student to explain it to you first. :-)
In any case the scope of modern science is *enormous*, and
there are plently of things still to be understood about the
established theories for "old scientists" to be getting on
with, even if they happen not to follow the latest trends.

Research is the leading edge of discovery. Moving to the next
thing - whether incremental, or not - is an integral part of
the process.

#Paul

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:29:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 17/04/2022 15:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2022 08:56:52 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>>> themselves obsolete.
>>>
>>> To what new science do you refer?
>
>> The science that will supercede the science which claims that fossil
>> fuel and nuclear power are the only realistic way to produce adequate
>> amounts of energy.
>
>I see your English is as hopeless as your science.

Your argument would perhaps be more convincing if you didn't need to
bolster you argument by being be quite so pathetically picky.

>So what exactly is this science which will supersede?
>Magic Unicorns?

What a novel idea. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?
--

Mike

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:23:24 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:

>On 16/04/2022 16:46, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>> Sky News:
>> Building solar farms could cut bills and replace Russian gas faster
>> than other sources of energy, industry says
>
>> <https://news.sky.com/story/building-solar-farms-could-cut-bills-and-replace-russian-gas-faster-than-other-sources-of-energy-industry-says-12591406>
>
>Real-life data strongly suggests that building more solar subsidy farms
>wil lresult in even more Russian gas being needed.
>
>I gave you an example of how this works a little while ago.

Yes you did but this link was about someone elses findings.
--

Mike

On 17/04/2022 21:28, Rod Speed wrote:
> newshound <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote
>> Andrew wrote
>>> Mike Halmarack wrote
>
>>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>>> themselves obsolete.
>>>  You really don't understand basic physics or sums do you ?.
>>>  There is nothing 'specialist' about energy density, battery
>>> capacity or the absolute need that the world has for a
>>> constant, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.
>>>  Wind and solar fail on all three counts.
>>
>>
>> "The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise.
>> It's about what *people* expect and will tolerate. "Saving the planet"
>> is not a binary choice. Humans have been changing it significantly for
>> more than ten thousand years.
>
> For far longer than that in fact, even when they were just hunter
> gatherers.
>
> There is quite a bit of evidence that the australian aboriginese extincted
> the mega fauna with their deliberate use of fire to modify the natural
> state
> of the environment.

I agonised a bit over whether to say 100,000 years for just that reason.
Presumably they also hunted megafauna directly. But >10k is certainly
uncontentious.

>
>> Currently, a proportion of people believe the "irretrievable breakdown
>> without net zero" theory. Political pressure is dictating energy
>> strategies that are already having adverse consequences in terms of
>> electricity price. These will adapt depending on the impacts that they
>> have, and anyone who claims they can predict the outcomes is either a
>> liar, or deluded.
>
>> As you say, you can't buck the physical limits. But over time we
>> could, theoretically, transition to a medieval society where all
>> energy sources are "sustainable" (whatever that means).
>
> Or even return to just hunting and gathering and watching your
> kid die in severe drought etc.

Going quite that far seems to me to be less likely. There's a small part
of me that wonders whether the very long-term future may look more than
a little like Diskworld.

>
>> Leave out fission and fusion, and you end up with a much smaller UK
>> population. Allow nuclear and a bit of fossil, then who knows.

On 18/04/2022 09:59, #Paul wrote:
> Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and
>> engineers don't like new science that makes their specialist
>> fields and themselves obsolete.
>
> You believe wrong. New science is interesting, and creates
> new opportunities for new work. Even if you sometimes might
> have to get a graduate student to explain it to you first. :-)
> In any case the scope of modern science is *enormous*, and
> there are plently of things still to be understood about the
> established theories for "old scientists" to be getting on
> with, even if they happen not to follow the latest trends.
>
> Research is the leading edge of discovery. Moving to the next
> thing - whether incremental, or not - is an integral part of
> the process.
>
>
>
> #Paul

+1

On 18/04/2022 10:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 15:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 09:06:59 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the things I do believe is that old scientists and engineers
>>>> don't like new science that makes their specialist fields and
>>>> themselves obsolete.
>>>
>>> Engineering and materials may have changed, physics not so much.
>>
>> So it's not possible for physics to change significantly in the
>> context of energy production and use?
>
> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
> fusion etc.
>
> And some better understandings of why batteries don't work.
> The laws of physics around windmills haven't changed since they were
> first invented in the dark ages - or earlier.
>
>
>> Are the laws of physics and the understanding of them complete, fixed
>> and unchangeable? If so, that will be very reassuring for some.
>
> No, but it is inconceivable that know restrictions that have existed for
> hundreds of years suddenly disappear.
>
>
> What you do not understand is the vast difference between science and
> technology as described by people trying to sell you shiny  shit, and
> science and technology as it is practised by real people with real life
> problems to solve.
>
>
>
+1

On 17/04/2022 17:04, newshound wrote:

> "The world" doesn't have a "need" for this, absolute or otherwise.

So the NHS can go back to blood-letting and applying leeches then ?.

Lets scrap all those electricity-hungry MRI and CAT scanners, all
the hi-tech Path Lab analysers, all the ITU monitors, ....

Let's close all the food manufacturing factories, supermarkets
and refridgeration equipment, because all 7.8 billion can go
back to shopping every day at the farmers market, can't they ?

On 17/04/2022 18:20, Chris Hogg wrote:

>
> There will be no magic discoveries that save us all, except in your
> fantasy-land.
>

Sadly the only recent magic 'discovery' (nRNA vaccinations) has
only 'saved' the global population so that that they can continue
to destroy the planet due to their sheer weight of numbers.

Our hand-wavy friend (and many others) simply cannot see the writing
on the wall because he is obsessed with the 'ease' that renewable
energy can somehow solve all the problems.