The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>> Chemical energy storage
>>> ===============
>>> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them
>>>into unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water
>>>to diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
>>>hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
>>>really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain
>>>why later. At any level this will be less efficient that running
>>>directly from electricity, but if that is the price of portable
>>>power, and there is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the
>>>potential parameters of chemical fuel are absolutely well known -
>>>there are no hidden pots of gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
>>> All that can be possibly improved  are better ways to manufacture
>>>synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>> That doesn't show it isn't a useful thing to do, though. If you had
>>sufficiently large solar arrays in heavily insolated areas, might they
>>be able to produce hydrocarbon volumes significant enough to
>>contribute to the solution?
>
>You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>working to ecomicially viable.

I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine, which
was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons, whereas the
idea you then criticised was using them to generate electricity
directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good, which is why I
phrased it as a question.
>
>Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke instead.
>

Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?

--
Algernon

On 11/04/2022 16:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:25:20 +0100, Andrew
> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

>>> When there is a blocking high pressure over the arctic for days and days
>> blanketing the UK in freezing fog, there is no wind and no solar
>> either, then what ?

> If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.

You don't need to remember, you need to research the facts of the matter.

There were two periods of seven days this winter where the whole of the
renewables programme produced a mere 10% of demand, due to high pressure
areas over Europe.

The Met office will tell you about the one, and TNP's web site will tell
you the other.

We adapted by burning coal like there was no tomorrow, the
interconnectors were melting, and OCGT was running flat out, thanks to
the greenies who Won't Do Sums.

--
Spike

On 12/04/2022 12:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 11:54, newshound wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:30:03 +0100, John Rumm
>>> <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 16:46, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:42:14 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>>>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I
>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the
>>>>>>>>>> aptitude to
>>>>>>>>>> say it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe
>>>>>>>>> in no more
>>>>>>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years
>>>>>>>>> because "wind
>>>>>>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green
>>>>>>>>> tariffs and
>>>>>>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is
>>>>>>>>> green.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>>>>>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>>>>>>>> energy'...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>>>>>>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>>>>>>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very
>>>>>>> disturbing to
>>>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the
>>>>>> future?
>>>>>> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
>>>>>> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are various storage and conversion+storage solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Now show us one that works at grid scale?
>>>>
>>>> Remember if you are committed to wind power then you need enough
>>>> storage
>>>> to survive the two or three extended (say 14 day) periods of zero
>>>> generation per winter when the whole continent is becalmed. That means
>>>> you also need enough generation capacity to supply base and peak
>>>> load at
>>>> the same time as recharging your storage solution to cover that
>>>> level of
>>>> interruption.
>>>>
>>>> Tesla's newest "gigafactory" in Germany, should be able to produce
>>>> up to
>>>> 100 GWh of battery capacity per year when it starts production - with a
>>>> projected ramp up to perhaps 250 GWh/year.
>>>>
>>>> So even if we were allowed to, and could afford to buy the entire
>>>> annual
>>>> output, that could in theory store enough to keep the UK grid running
>>>> from batteries for under three hours! Two orders of magnitude short
>>>> of the minimum we would require.
>>>>
>>>> All our pumped hydro added together can generate a peak of 3GW, and
>>>> keep
>>>> it going for a few hours (just under 30 GWh storage in total).
>>>>
>>>> Our base load exceeds 30 GW all year round - that is 720 GWh per *day*
>>>> in the summer - and probably closer to 1TWh/day in the winter. That is
>>>> before we shift any significant portion of transport, or space heating
>>>> to energy demand to electric power.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not an engineer
>>>>
>>>> And that is the challenge with many promoting "solutions" to this
>>>> problem. Yes energy storage is easy at small scale, and doable at the
>>>> small to medium (i.e. individual power station) scale, but rapidly
>>>> becomes a massively more intractable problem at grid scale.
>>>>
>>>> Run the numbers, most proposed "solutions" don't come anywhere close.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information.
>>>
>>> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>>> to the limitations.
>>
>> You mean, going back to a Medieval economy. Wind, water and tide
>> mills, all metals, bricks, glass, and ceramics produced by nice
>> sustainable charcoal.
>
> and all transport by horse and cart, or pack mule, which can eat the
> weight it can carry in 50 miles...
>
>
I think we could just about allow a simple steam or IC engine powered by
wood. The amount of iron or steel that could be produced from
sustainable charcoal would be severely limited, of course. Perhaps
manage a UK population of a million or so?

As a mule owner, I can say your figures there are not correct. In the
19'th centuary, about a third of UK arable production was required to
feed the draft animals. My "riding" mule could carry my 80kg load for
about 20 miles in a day, if it if was properly fit. It would do that on
about 10kg of straw, rather less if supplemented with decent hay and
some grain. The point of a mule as a pack animal is to transport higher
value goods from the place they are available to the place they are
needed. You would move hay, straw, or grain on a waggon and then the
mule "efficiency" is very much higher.

On 11/04/2022 20:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 18:16, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2022 at 16:46:24 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:42:14 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>>>>>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the
>>>>>>>> aptitude to
>>>>>>>> say it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>>>>>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in
>>>>>>> no more
>>>>>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years
>>>>>>> because "wind
>>>>>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green
>>>>>>> tariffs and
>>>>>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is
>>>>>>> green.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>>>>>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>>>>>> energy'...
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>>>>> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>>>>> extremely destructive for everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>>>>> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>>>>> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>>>>> put it mildly
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
>>>> You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
>>>> suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
>>>> solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?
>>>
>>> There are various storage and conversion+storage solutions.
>>> I'm not an engineer but I do know when I'm being scammed and
>>> bullshitted by the lovers of big bucks at any cost.
>>
>> What storage solutions would those be, then? Do tell, I'm keen to know.
>>
> You see its so easy for a stupid cunt to mislead other stupid cunts.
> They wave their hands and dsay 'storage solutions'
>
> Now a proper general engineer will know that there are only so many
> generic storage solutions.
>
> Mechanical energy storage
> =================
> - water up a hill, or a lump of concrete up a hill. Or wound spring or
> compressed air, or a spinning flywheel. or a pendulum.
> For every given amount of energy you want to store, its a simple back of
> an envelope calculation  to determine how big a system you need, get a
> rough idea of cost, and a fairly clear idea as to how many people will
> be killed if it all lets go at once - if it breaks. You don't need to
> spend billions trying it out to find its a crock of shit.
>
> Chemical energy storage
> ===============
> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them into
> unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water   to
> diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
> hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
> really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain why
> later. At any level this will be less efficient that running directly
> from electricity, but if that is the price of portable power, and there
> is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the potential parameters of
> chemical fuel are absolutely well known - there are no hidden pots of
> gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
> All that can be possibly improved  are better ways to manufacture
> synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>
> Heat energy storage
> =============
> E.g. an olympic swimming pool full of molten salt .Of all the
> engineering physics the thermodynamics of heat and heat engines is the
> oldest. Fundamentally stoiring energy in hot things is extremely
> inefficient, but if you start with a hot thing anyway, like a molten
> salt  cooled nuclear power station it doesn't matter so much, so one
> technology that  does pass the back of enevelope test is to couple a
> molten salt reservoirs to a nuclear power station in order to have
> access to a short term peak power in excess of the reactor itself - a
> sort of heat bank. Also if the desired output is low grade heat, then a
> sodding great tank of hot ware under your house, heated in summer by
> solar energy, could actually take you through a winter. The ultimate
> storage heater really. Back of envelope calculations show these things
> are possible and not far off economic.
> As with all energy storage, the safety aspect is crucial. The thought of
> a hundred thousand tonnes of red hot salt hitting a nearby cooling pond
> is not attractive.
>
> Electrochemical energy storage
> =-==================
> Batteries. We know almost all there is to know about batteries and what
> we know that really matters is that they are not quite good enough for
> cars lorries, almost useless for boats and aeroplanes, and totally
> useless for storing storing grid scale energy. And they are fucking
> dangerous under fault conditions. We also know from back of envelope
> calculations how could they might possibly become, and the answer is
> 'possibly good enough for cars and aircraft and small boats, just' but
> the likely timescales are decades away. Certainly not by 2030. They will
> never be suitable for grid scale usage.
>
> Electrostatic energy storage
> =================
> Supercapacitors. Do the sums. and give up. Its amazing they are as good
> as they are., Some people have managed to get as much as a 30 second
> engine run out of ultra light model aircraft. About the same as a rubber
> band. You can do better with compressed carbon dioxide in a tank.
>
> I wont say there might not have a breakthrough in insulators, but no one
> is even talking about it, let alone has anything in te lab, or within 20
> years of a product., Forget capacitors., Not enough storage per unit cost.
>
> Nuclear fission storage
> ==============
>
> Well it is by far and away the most energy dense way to store energy,
> but short of a supernova, no one has any idea how to create fissionable
> nuclear materials . So for now a primary energy source.
>
> Nuclear fusion storage
> ==============
> See above. Until we know how to add helium and energy to get deiterium a
> primary energy source only.,
>
> Quantum level energy storage
> ===================
> This is the only area where any breakthroughs might in fact be possible.
> We simply do not know enough about the quantum world to say there will
> or will not be some way to utilise that level of matter to store and
> release energy.
>
> No one is working on it, either. Because they don't even know where to
> start.
>
> Now as far as I can recall that is it, for 'energy storage' The best
> stores - like coal oil and fissionable uranium and thorium, come 'pre
> loaded' and dont need charging up. They are, along with nuclear fusion,
> the only primary energy sources we have (renewable energy is really just
> totally fucked and stupid use of nuclear fusion at an incredible
> distance and uber low efficiency) .
>
> None of them cut the mustard. All of them are well understood and well
> able to be calculated at least to an order of magnitude whether they are
> remotely feasible in a real world engineering situation. None of them
> really are. Even the ones we are using already - like pumped storage -
> cannot be improved much or made cheaper.
>
> And the reason 'new technology' will not comes along and save the day is
> because these storage solutions are not bounded by technological
> limitations, but by the actual physics of the solution.
>
> So whilst better materials - aluminium and carbon fibre and even
> titanium - have enabled aircraft to grow from a bleriot monoplane to an
> Airbus, the power required to make them fly in BHP per ton, has barely
> shifted. Because that's physics.
>
> What held back aircraft development for 500 years was bhp per ton - no
> engined before a petrol engine was capable of the power to weight.
> In short, there is no room for 'new technology' breakthroughs in
> storage. Unlkes its some quantum process.
>
> Power generation is not new, its old hat, and it  has all been trued and
> calculated and what we have left that isn't propped up by
> SomeoneElsesMoney™ is the residue that hasn't died from total lack of
> commercial viability or government suppression.
>
> According to Phyiscs, there is no renewable energy. All the energy and
> matter in the while wide universe was created in the big bang, and we
> are riding the entropy hill down to an inevitable heat death.
>
> So called 'clean free renewable energy' is just  third hand nuclear
> power for our dangerous unshielded local reactor in the sky that has
> been running out of control for billions of years, but will one day run
> out of fuel. Harvested by expensive energy intensive inefficient
> machines that do a piss poor job of delivering anything useful, and if
> we 3want to live a lifestyle in excess of that provided by wanderiing
> around with  a couple of horses attached to a plough, itrs a bloody
> awful way to fail to do it.
> The only energy we have access to that is so abundant and cheap we dont
> even need to worry  about wasting it, that is super safe and doesn't go
> bang as easily as even coal,  that doesn't need storage because it comes
> already  as a stored element, is uranium and thorium.
>
> If God were to design the perfect fuel that would be it.
>
> And we are sitting on ten thousand years of it.
>
> Why aren't we using it?
>
> Because a lot of people sitting on billions or trillions of dollars of
> oil and gas don't want their reserves to become worthless overnight.
> We don't need storage, beyond maybe molten salt heat banks, at all, and
> we don't need pointless windmills, at all, we can do everything grid
> wise and have access to cheap reliable energy by using nuclear power.
>
> In short as an engineer what I see is a mess, a disater of heath
> robinson unreliable  intermittent sources of non renewable nuclear
> energy from the sun,  backed up by the very fossil fuels they were
> supposed to replace, compromised in stability security and cost, reliant
> on the development of blue sky storage that not only does not exist, but
> *cannot* exist, because it would violate the laws of physics and
> chemistry. Or cost so much in energy terms to build and make safe as to
> be completely counter productive, versus a simple solution of a couple
> of hundred nuclear plant, nicely placed near where their energy is
> needed, running into a simple grid sized just big enough to need the
> peak demand over the short distances it will have to flow. And nothing
> else.
>
> And that, mates, is why I feel utterly justified in saying that we have
> but one option and that is nuclear and that people who 'believe in
> renewables' and storage solutions are a dangerously stupid bunch of
> ignorant cunts, because that is what engineering shows the situation to be.
>
> Not 'my opinion'.
>
Good analysis, at least up to the point where you suggest it's the
gas/oil plutocracy that won't permit nuclear. I see little evidence for
that. Suggesting that plutocrats are the source of all are woes is a
line more commonly associated the loony lefty greens.

On 12/04/2022 11:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>> Chemical energy storage
>>> ===============
>>> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them
>>> into unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water
>>> to diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
>>> hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
>>> really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain
>>> why later. At any level this will be less efficient that running
>>> directly from electricity, but if that is the price of portable
>>> power, and there is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the
>>> potential parameters of chemical fuel are absolutely well known -
>>> there are no hidden pots of gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
>>> All that can be possibly improved  are better ways to manufacture
>>> synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>>
>> That doesn't show it isn't a useful thing to do, though. If you had
>> sufficiently large solar arrays in heavily insolated areas, might they
>> be able to produce hydrocarbon volumes significant enough to
>> contribute to the solution?
>
> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
> working to ecomicially viable.
>
> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke instead.
>
> The criteria that 'it works ' means nothing in engineering or economic
> terms.
>
> I can build a car with hexagonal wheels that *works*.
>
> To be worth having, new design has to work better, at lower cost than
> what went before.
>
> Let's take a really nice green idea - sailing ships, that use no fuel at
> all. So in order to work, they have to follow the wind, which isn't
> there all the time, its often somewhere else or in the wrong direction.
> Then again instead of half a dozen guys loafing around pushing buttons,
> you need a crew of 200 to take the sails in by hand. Hey. Look. More
> green jobs!
>
> At their zenith, clipper ships were capable of over 20 knots. And yet
> they faded from existence when coal powered steam tramps barely capable
> of 8 knots replaced them. Why? because the steam tramps had a *reliable*
> 8 knots and the clippers only *averaged* 5 knots on most runs. And the
> clipper ships needed a whole crew of skilled seafarers, whereas a tramp
> steamer needed one engineer and a couple of stokers.
>
> Wind turbines and solar panels are the modern equivalent of sailing
> ships. They work, but they do not work better or at lower cost than what
> they are supposed to replace. On the other hand nuclear plants *do* work
> as well as, and at similar cost - and now with gas prices up, at lower
> cost - than gas power stations.
>
> The only reason we have renewable energy at all is on account of people
> lobbying government to make an unprofitable 17th century technology
> economically profitable in the 21st century.
>
> We cannot afford to do this any longer.
>
> Any energy technology that cannot on its own wholly replace a gas power
> station needs to be costed in conjunction with, over its full life time,
> all the extra gear it needs in order to be a relaible and stable power
> generation source - the backup, the grid stabilisation kit, the extra
> long grid connections, the mobile gas guzzling service craft needed to
> access its remote location, the cost of its maintenance in carbon and in
> money...and the like, and compared with an equivalent nuclear power
> station.
>
> If it isn't as cheap it's not a solution any one needs, or wants, except
> those who profit by raping the consumer with government subsidies.
>
> "An engineer is someone who can do for five bob what any damned fool can
> do for a quid".
>
In a nut-shell.

On 11/04/2022 20:04, Jonathan Harston wrote:
> People who go on "green" tarrifs should be forced to have
> a smart meter that switches them off when there is
> insufficient green electricity available. After all, they are
> saying with their money that they don't want non-green
> leccy, take take them at their word.

Brilliant idea!

On 12/04/2022 12:11, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>>> Chemical energy storage
>>>> ===============
>>>> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn them
>>>> into unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water
>>>> to diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for mobile use is
>>>> hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want. Because you don't
>>>> really need to store energy for static on grid needs. I'll explain
>>>> why  later. At any level this will be less efficient that running
>>>> directly  from electricity, but if that is the price of portable
>>>> power, and  there is no alternative, so be it. Once again all the
>>>> potential  parameters of chemical fuel are absolutely well known -
>>>> there are no  hidden pots of gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
>>>> All that can be possibly improved  are better ways to manufacture
>>>> synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>>>  That doesn't show it isn't a useful thing to do, though. If you had
>>> sufficiently large solar arrays in heavily insolated areas, might
>>> they be able to produce hydrocarbon volumes significant enough to
>>> contribute  to the solution?
>>
>> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>> working to ecomicially viable.
>
> I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine, which
> was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons, whereas the
> idea you then criticised was using them to generate electricity
> directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good, which is why I
> phrased it as a question.
>>
>> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke instead.
>>
>
> Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?
>
Probably no harder than to use solar power., In both cases you either
have a lot of heat, or a lot of electricity as the starting point.
Hydrogen is easy. The world is awash with water, though less so in a
'heavily insolated desert'

The real problem is carbon. There simply are no easy sources of it that
are not suitable as fossil or biofuel in their own right. It's such a
small percentage of the air and the sea that getting CO2 from there is
not very easy, and of course if you get it from say limestone, that
becomes just another fossil fuel source.

One very inefficient way is to have massive LED panels and use
photosynthesis...algae or similar - to pull CO2 and water out of the air
and hydroponic tanks.

Anyway the synthesis of 4.H2O + CO2=>CH4 + 3 O2, is not simple or
efficient, but then no one has bothered to attempt it, there being
plenty of fossil fuel...petrol and diesel from coal have been done
commercially when access to oil was limited (Germany in WWII and S
Africa under embargo) . So its an unknown. My guess is it will happen
and will in the end be the (expensive) solution for all the places where
electricity or nuclear power in a more native form doesn't do the job
but methane or avjet or gasoline does. Think fighting a war without
diesel....

I suspect that high temperatures and pressures and the right catalyst
would allow direct synthesis of hydrocarbons and alcohols from water and
carbon dioxide. And that once fossil fuel prices rise to 5-10 times
that of nuclear power, that will be the answer to off-grid mobile power.

(interestingly one thing that hasn't been talked about - presumably
because it would actually work , is the use of the completely currently
pointless rail network to move freight off the roads and on to railways
using proper huighh tech automatic freight forwarding. Standard sized
packages, bar coded, sorted automatically by the mechanical equivalent
of an internet backbone router :

'the next hop destination for a final destination of Little Podlington
on Marsh, is in fact Milton Keynes' ...Once at Milton Keynes if the next
hop was little Podlington itself, well then onto an automatic driverless
BEV for the last 15 miles.

So freight transport could, by converting huge swathes of the motorways
to rail tracks, and possibly huge swathes of rural roads to trolley
tracks, be electrified.

And its entirely possible that drive on car carrying trains that charge
the BEVs could allow a sort of private motoring without IC engines, but
there isnt enough lithium cobalt neodymium etc etc in the world to make
it a universal solution.

But it could work for freight, and railway extension could work to
reduce costs of freight as well.

As always the bugbear is storage that doesn't exist. Right now we have
pre existent storage as coal natural gas, oil, uranium and the like,
but the machinery to turn these into stuff that works cheaply is really
limited to oil and natural gas for transport applications.

Ships can be nuclear powered 0- that works. But not bicycles, Yet.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:26:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

>The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
>of hysterical uncertainty.
>
>I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
>Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
>avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
>of the mix as much as possible. Nationalisation is the answer to
>that.

While I agree with you that government ought to be financing and
building nuclear power stations, once they're built there really is no
point in having renewables. The number of nuclear power stations
needed to 'fill the gaps' as you put it, i.e. to act as backup when
TSDSATWDB would of necessity be capable of powering the whole country
for several days, so why not continuously. Having built them, make
full use of them. Having them on stand-by for periods of the time,
then ramping them up to full output, doesn't do the fuel rods any
good, AIUI. And if dealing with the waste worries you, you'd still
have that waste whether you run them intermittently of flat out.

--
Chris

On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
> to the limitations.
By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.

Bill

On 12/04/2022 11:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 10:39, Spike wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 20:03, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> You condemn climate change, deny that CO2 levels are rising
>>
>> What TNP condemns is the creed that the latter is caused by the former.
>>
>>
>
> Thank you .
>
> Climate change is the new christening. Imagine the england of Chaucer..
>
> "Twere an biggun wind last nighte"
> "Aye, it be god's will, and them that fornicate with widow Hawsei do
> have summat to answer for"
> "An I here that John the miller is predicting no corne this summerday"
> "Aye and its all to do with children not being birched enough, God is
> angry at their impudence, and will cause famine to kill them"
>
> "In the medieval chronicles of Europe, the summer of 1258 was described
> as unseasonably cold, resulting in poor harvests that were devastated by
> heavy floods. That summer thousands of people were buried in mass graves
> in London, possibly a result of the bad weather and the lack of food. "
>
> It were Godde's Wille, and Mortal Sinnes,  not 4x4s clanking down
> chelsea kings road.
>
> "The Great Famine started with bad weather in spring 1315. Crop failures
> lasted through 1316 until the summer harvest in 1317, and Europe did not
> fully recover until 1322. Crop failures were not the only problem;
> cattle disease caused sheep and cattle numbers to fall as much as 80
> percent. The period was marked by extreme levels of crime, disease, mass
> death, and even cannibalism and infanticide."
>
> "Between 1310 and 1330, northern Europe saw some of the worst and most
> sustained periods of bad weather in the entire Middle Ages,
> characterized by severe winters and rainy and cold summers."
>
> It was the end of the Mediaeval Warm period - the one that Michael Mann
> and the climate cultists erased from the records , when the Scandinvians
> grew crops in Iceland and wine grapes in Scandinavia,when it was so warm
> that civilisation blossomed across northern Europe basking in
> temperatures that the IPCC has decreed will bring an end to civilisation
> (and of course Polar Bears..) if they were to happen today. A time when
> glaciers were smaller than at any time since the Roman warm periods and
> it is likely the Arctic was fully ice free in summer.
>
> These are verifiable FACTS. Not ecobollox projections from simplistic
> computer models fed with incorrect assumptions, insufficient data and
> 'adjusted' in a vain attempts to make them match historic data - which
> they utterly fail to do anyway.
>
>
Iceland be blowed, the Vikings were in *Greenland* from 985 to 1420

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/

In message <t33p2d$ok0$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 12/04/2022 12:11, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>> On 12/04/2022 08:35, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> posted
>>>>> Chemical energy storage
>>>>> ===============
>>>>> Basically you take stable compounds and by adding energy, turn
>>>>>them into unstable compounds. Water to hydrogen. Carbon dioxide
>>>>>and water to diesel fuel etc etc. Since the optimal fuel for
>>>>>mobile use is hydrocarbon fuel, that's probably what you want.
>>>>>Because you don't really need to store energy for static on grid
>>>>>needs. I'll explain why  later. At any level this will be less
>>>>>efficient that running directly  from electricity, but if that is
>>>>>the price of portable power, and  there is no alternative, so be
>>>>>it. Once again all the potential  parameters of chemical fuel are
>>>>>absolutely well known - there are no  hidden pots of gold, only basic chemistry and physics.
>>>>> All that can be possibly improved  are better ways to manufacture
>>>>>synthetic fuels, that's all. improve efficiency a few percent.
>>>>  That doesn't show it isn't a useful thing to do, though. If you
>>>>had sufficiently large solar arrays in heavily insolated areas,
>>>>might they be able to produce hydrocarbon volumes significant
>>>>enough to contribute  to the solution?
>>>
>>> You didn't read my other post where I classified solutions from non
>>>working to ecomicially viable.
>> I did, actually, and kept a copy. But I'm not sure you read mine,
>>which was about using solar arrays to synthesise hydrocarbons,
>>whereas the idea you then criticised was using them to generate
>>electricity directly. I don't know whether my suggestion is any good,
>>which is why I phrased it as a question.
>>>
>>> Of course you could, but it is simply WAY cheaper to use a nuke instead.
>>>
>> Is it easy to use nuclear power to synthesise hydrocarbons?
>>
>Probably no harder than to use solar power., In both cases you either
>have a lot of heat, or a lot of electricity as the starting point.
>Hydrogen is easy. The world is awash with water, though less so in a
>'heavily insolated desert'
>
>The real problem is carbon. There simply are no easy sources of it that
>are not suitable as fossil or biofuel in their own right. It's such a
>small percentage of the air and the sea that getting CO2 from there is
>not very easy, and of course if you get it from say limestone, that
>becomes just another fossil fuel source.
>
>One very inefficient way is to have massive LED panels and use
>photosynthesis...algae or similar - to pull CO2 and water out of the
>air and hydroponic tanks.
>
>Anyway the synthesis of 4.H2O + CO2=>CH4 + 3 O2, is not simple or
>efficient, but then no one has bothered to attempt it, there being
>plenty of fossil fuel...petrol and diesel from coal have been done
>commercially when access to oil was limited (Germany in WWII and S
>Africa under embargo) . So its an unknown. My guess is it will happen
>and will in the end be the (expensive) solution for all the places
>where electricity or nuclear power in a more native form doesn't do the
>job but methane or avjet or gasoline does. Think fighting a war
>without diesel....
>
>I suspect that high temperatures and pressures and the right catalyst
>would allow direct synthesis of hydrocarbons and alcohols from water
>and carbon dioxide. And that once fossil fuel prices rise to 5-10
>times that of nuclear power, that will be the answer to off-grid mobile
>power.
>
>(interestingly one thing that hasn't been talked about - presumably
>because it would actually work , is the use of the completely currently
>pointless rail network to move freight off the roads and on to railways
>using proper huighh tech automatic freight forwarding. Standard sized
>packages, bar coded, sorted automatically by the mechanical equivalent
>of an internet backbone router :

HaHa! They have been arguing about a freight exchange scheme near St.
Albans for more than 20 years. Railway M1,M25 already there..
>
>'the next hop destination for a final destination of Little Podlington
>on Marsh, is in fact Milton Keynes' ...Once at Milton Keynes if the
>next hop was little Podlington itself, well then onto an automatic
>driverless BEV for the last 15 miles.
>
>So freight transport could, by converting huge swathes of the motorways
>to rail tracks, and possibly huge swathes of rural roads to trolley
>tracks, be electrified.
>
>And its entirely possible that drive on car carrying trains that charge
>the BEVs could allow a sort of private motoring without IC engines, but
>there isnt enough lithium cobalt neodymium etc etc in the world to make
>it a universal solution.
>
>But it could work for freight, and railway extension could work to
>reduce costs of freight as well.
>
>As always the bugbear is storage that doesn't exist. Right now we have
>pre existent storage as coal natural gas, oil, uranium and the like,
>but the machinery to turn these into stuff that works cheaply is really
>limited to oil and natural gas for transport applications.
>
>Ships can be nuclear powered 0- that works. But not bicycles, Yet.
>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <sfpa5hhi71ciu1g196si142e0ucvgf3n8b@4ax.com>, Chris Hogg
<me@privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:26:42 +0100, Mike Halmarack
><mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The amount of personal insult and vitriol in this thread is indicative
>>of hysterical uncertainty.
>>
>>I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
>>Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
>>avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
>>of the mix as much as possible. Nationalisation is the answer to
>>that.
>
>While I agree with you that government ought to be financing and
>building nuclear power stations, once they're built there really is no
>point in having renewables. The number of nuclear power stations
>needed to 'fill the gaps' as you put it, i.e. to act as backup when
>TSDSATWDB would of necessity be capable of powering the whole country
>for several days, so why not continuously. Having built them, make
>full use of them. Having them on stand-by for periods of the time,
>then ramping them up to full output, doesn't do the fuel rods any
>good, AIUI. And if dealing with the waste worries you, you'd still
>have that waste whether you run them intermittently of flat out.

Is it totally beyond reason for new nuclear to be a nationalised
activity? The sums involved seem beyond that available from conventional
investment sources.
The timescale is likely to cross several 5 year government terms anyway.
Planning could be simplified by something like the *New Towns* of the
last century.
If part of my electricity bill is funding windmills, I would like an
opportunity to re-direct it to nuclear.
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/04/2022 12:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> and all transport by horse and cart, or pack mule, which can eat the
> weight it can carry in 50 miles...
>
>

Good job we still have our Victorian canal system.

On 12/04/2022 13:42, williamwright wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>> to the limitations.
> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
> to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.
>
> Bill

TBH, if people had limited themselves to <=2 kids since 1945, then
we could have delayed 'man made global warming' for another 100
years or so.

On 12/04/2022 09:16, Chris Hogg wrote:

> The Sahara desert would be a good place assuming you could keep the
> panels free from dust, and such a scheme has been proposed in the
> past. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec and
> https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ As well as photovoltaics, they also
> looked at solar furnaces, proposing to store heat as molten salt to
> power generators overnight. The electricity produced would be fed
> across the Mediterranean via DC interconnects into the European grid.
> It all came to nothing.
>

Slight problem, that is in despot territory.

On 11/04/2022 15:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
> windmills.

Let's Do Some Sums.

Take the case of a 1GW load initially supplied by a 1GW CCGT.

The greenies, who as a class Can't Don't Sums, then insist on saving the
planet by adding a 1GW wind farm.

Because they Can't Do Sums, they believe that 'the wind always blows
somewhere' - refusing to believe that sometimes the wind doesn't blow on
their subsidy farm.

In the real world, wind-based subsidy farms produce 36% of plated capacity.

[ 75,610GWh from 11018 windmills for 2020 = 35.9% of the plated
capacity of 24GW]

So when the wind doesn't blow, or isn't blowing strongly enough, or is
blowing too hard, the CCGT has to cut in to supply the missing power.

Now for the sums, using real-world figures:

The CCGT running all the time, and therefore in its optimal
configuration, might be 60% efficient. It therefore uses 1/0.6 = 1.67GW
of gas per GW produced.

But with the subsidy farm now in operation, the CCGT now has to supply
0.64GW of electricity, in a variable-power regime in which it is not
efficient. The actual efficiency can vary from 0% at start-up, and 25%
to when the combined cycle kicks in, to 40% in the throttled-back case.

Let's not frighten the greenies, and therefore pretend that the CCGT is
now 40% efficient as a backup to the subsidy farm. It therefore uses
0.64/0.4 GW of gas, or 1.6GW of gas to produce the missing 0.64GW of
electricity.

So, the planet-saving subsidy farm has saved, at great expense and a lot
of concrete, un-recyclable plastics, and dead birds, very little gas at
all, under the best circumstances. Rather different than the greenies
hand-waving claims. The net effect of operating the subsidy farm is to
INCREASE emissions.

Most of us would regard that as LUDICROUS.

Solar is even worse. Some 12% efficient overall.

These real-world problems, that those that Can't Do Sums shut their eyes
to, are caused by the Achilles Heel of renewables: INTERMITTENCY.

--
Spike

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:42:49 PM UTC+1, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> > We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
> > to the limitations.
> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
> to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.
>
> Bill

Your lifestyle and wealth is already in the process of being degraded in a big way.
The only saving grace for you Bill is that you can blame Jeremy Corbyn.#

The Fossil Fuel Roadshow and their +1ers are mob handed in this thread, so I'm not going to respond to every poke.

There are scientists, engineers and economists who are not in thrall to the fossil fuel industry, working on developing and optimising renewable energy systems. Are they doing so in the knowledge that it's impractical and bound to fail?

No, they believe in what they're doing.

If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists, engineers and economists are fallible?
You wouldn't believe this was possible reading the posts of the self proclaimed professionals writing here .

On 12/04/2022 14:22, Tim Lamb wrote:

> HaHa! They have been arguing about a freight exchange scheme near St.
> Albans for more than 20 years. Railway M1,M25 already there..

There was one at Olympia for many years. It was a Motorrail
terminal. This is why if you alight at Olympia from London Overground
the platforms are absurdly long for normal commuter usage.

On 12/04/2022 12:33, newshound wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 11:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> "An engineer is someone who can do for five bob what any damned fool
>> can do for a quid".
>>
> In a nut-shell.

But the cost-accountants would insist that it is done for
4 shillimgs 11 pence and 3 farthings by using a lower spec
component that then fails under 'unexpected' situations.

On 12/04/2022 11:54, Spike wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, the second week of the low renewables output this winter
> closely followed the first, suggesting that the backup energy required
> wouldn't have been available due to the recharging problem.
>
> What do you propose then?
>

Mutter "'they' should do something about it" ?

On 12/04/2022 11:36, newshound wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 20:04, Jonathan Harston wrote:
>> People who go on "green" tarrifs should be forced to have
>> a smart meter that switches them off when there is
>> insufficient green electricity available. After all, they are
>> saying with their money that they don't want non-green
>> leccy, take take them at their word.

> Brilliant idea!

When I was with OVO, they used to contact me every now and then to ask
how they could improve things.

I said they should have an 'all nuclear'' tariff, and that those that
wanted 'green energy' could enjoy what was described above.

They never answered...

--
Spike

On 11/04/2022 19:31, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>
>>
>> If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>
> Go to the grid watch site and look at the monthly graph to see how well
> wind has done. You may notice 8 consecutive days with wind producing
> practically nothing.
>
> https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
>
>

A better site is the Drax electric Insights :-

https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=3lpbsv

You can select all or none of the sources of power and plot your
own graphs

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:43:03 +0100, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:25:20 +0100, Andrew
><Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/04/2022 16:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
>>> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
>>> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
>>> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
>>> windmills.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, so what happens when the wind is too strong ?.
>
>The windmills stop working?
>
>>The windmills are
>>feathered and the owners (including Camerons FIL) are paid to not
>>produce any power.
>
>>>When there is a blocking high pressure over the arctic for days and days
>>blanketing the UK in freezing fog, there is no wind and no solar
>>either, then what ?
>
>If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>
https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=7unjrk

--
Chris

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 15:22:59 +0100, Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:43:03 +0100, Mike Halmarack
><mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:25:20 +0100, Andrew
>><Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/04/2022 16:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
>>>> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
>>>> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
>>>> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
>>>> windmills.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, so what happens when the wind is too strong ?.
>>
>>The windmills stop working?
>>
>>>The windmills are
>>>feathered and the owners (including Camerons FIL) are paid to not
>>>produce any power.
>>
>>>>When there is a blocking high pressure over the arctic for days and days
>>>blanketing the UK in freezing fog, there is no wind and no solar
>>>either, then what ?
>>
>>If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>>
>https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/homepage?&_k=7unjrk

More particularly
https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q1-2021/when-the-wind-goes-gas-fills-in-the-gap/

--
Chris

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

We don't need to resort to insults. we just suffer fools badly.

> I believe that renewable energy should be combined and maximised.
> Safe and sensible nuclear reactors should fill the gaps, which means
> avaricious tory politicians and greedy financiers should be kept out
> of the mix as much as possible. Nationalisation is the answer to
> that.
>
Nationalisation will massively extend the development of anything.
How many smart phones and other devices have a Transputer in tehm ?.
Do you even know what a Transputer is ?. Hint, it was the product of
a nationalised 'industry' way back.

Meanwhile, Acorn Computer, 100% private went on to create the Advanced
Risc Machine chip which then became standalone company call ARM.

> The furore over the suggested reduction of high energy demanding NHS
> paraphenalia is a bit of a joke.

It was your suggestion though

> I'm lucky if I can get an appointment with a GP within a month. And if
> I was rushed to hospital with a serious illness I'd be quite likely to
> die languishing in the car park or some busy corridor.

BS. If it was a real emergency, aneurysm, clot/stroke, heart attack, car
crash or any accident needing surgery, you would get it, immediately,
and quite likely to be taken to hospital in an air ambulance (that is
*not* electric) that guzzles carbon-based fuel.

The GP situation is complex. After being given a massive pay increase
by NuLab in 2003/4 the effect on their NHS final salary pension was to
push them up to, and over Gordon Browns pensions Lifetime allowance.

Ditto hospital consultants. There are penalties for doing this, like a
potential 55% tax on the excess. These penalties apply to *everyone*.
If my SIPP exceeds £1,073,000 I have to pay that tax, even if I managed
to get it up to that amount by virtue of clever or lucky investments
and *not* because my employer/client made huge contributions as part of
'salary'.

The GP OTOH (even though self employed !) just watches the largesse of
his taxpayer-funded pension roll in at zero investment risk to him, and
is so annoyed at the tax implicatins that he/she retires then early, and
then works as a locum for a couple of days a week.

His replacement is almost certainly a part-time female with kids, who
froths at length on the GP website about 'work life balance'
(translation: I come in 2 days a week and probably only see patients
for half of one of those days). This is why a GP appointment is like
gold dust these days.

Also add on 12 million pensioners, 560,000 over age 85 who are now
highly dependent on modern medicine to keep them alive. Naturally all
this needs constant assessment and 'review', which occupies a huge
amount of a GPs time.