On 18/04/2022 19:06, Steve Walker wrote:
> On 18/04/2022 15:03, Andrew wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
> Except that there will be no food. Without energy to produce fertiliser,
> farmers would be back to little more than subsistence farming, with
> little left over to sell and, of course, there would be no imports - and
> the country cannot feed itself, even with current production levels,
> without imports.
>

First part is not true. This is the essence of organic farming, but that
is a small part of total agricultural output and cannot supply the needs
of 66 million mouths.

We used to import much of our meat and dairy from Oz, New Zealand
and South America before joining the common market and those
countries can produce lots of food without needing huge amounts
of fertiliser but that still leaves the problem of moving the
product half way around the world in refridgerated ships without
fossil fuels.

On 18/04/2022 03:12, williamwright wrote:
> 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.

ISTM that "live with the limitations" is really a euphemism for "die
because of the limitations".

Just because at some point in the past we were able to survive just fine
without some particular service or capability, does not mean it would be
possible to go back there now that huge numbers of additional things we
rely one, in turn rely on that "new" technology.

We coped without mobile phones, now countless businesses would fail and
billions be wiped off GDP if they stopped working. The western world as
we know it would suffer incalculable harm if GPS were turned off now,
yes most of use probably grew up without it. Even more true for an
"always on" dependable electrical supply. It would only be a short while
without it before we would run out of diesel, and hence distribution,
and hence food.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:33:18 +1000, Andrew
<Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:

> On 18/04/2022 19:06, Steve Walker wrote:
>> On 18/04/2022 15:03, Andrew wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>> Except that there will be no food. Without energy to produce
>> fertiliser, farmers would be back to little more than subsistence
>> farming, with little left over to sell and, of course, there would be
>> no imports - and the country cannot feed itself, even with current
>> production levels, without imports.
>>
>
> First part is not true. This is the essence of organic farming, but that
> is a small part of total agricultural output and cannot supply the needs
> of 66 million mouths.

Odd that most of the food production during WW2 was essentially
what we now call organic farming. Yes, the population has increased
substantially since then, but there is no longer any need to use lots of
prime agricultural land for all those airfields and other military stuff.

> We used to import much of our meat and dairy from Oz, New Zealand
> and South America before joining the common market and those
> countries can produce lots of food without needing huge amounts
> of fertiliser

In fact none with most of the meat production then.

> but that still leaves the problem of moving the
> product half way around the world in refridgerated ships without
> fossil fuels.

Trivial, nuke powered ships.

On 18/04/2022 22:17, alan_m wrote:
> But Mike probably has a battery in his mobile phone that last a month
> without recharging and all as a result of billions spent on battery
> research over the past 3 decades.

15 years ago I had a 'phone like that. They are called feature phones,
and the main feature is the battery life.

Now I have an Android phone and the life is a few days. Despite the
bigger battery.

Andy

On 19/04/2022 20:32, Jock wrote:
>>
>> First part is not true. This is the essence of organic farming, but that
>> is a small part of total agricultural output and cannot supply the needs
>> of 66 million mouths.
>
> Odd that most of the food production during WW2 was essentially
> what we now call organic farming. Yes, the population has increased
> substantially since then, but there is no longer any need to use lots of
> prime agricultural land for all those airfields and other military stuff.
>
Do you have a figure for how much land was used by the military? I
suspect it's not much.

>> We used to import much of our meat and dairy from Oz, New Zealand
>> and South America before joining the common market and those
>> countries can produce lots of food without needing huge amounts
>> of fertiliser
>
> In fact none with most of the meat production then.
>
>> but that still leaves the problem of moving the
>> product half way around the world in refridgerated ships without
>> fossil fuels.
>
> Trivial, nuke powered ships.

If we've got nukes we can stick them on land and make fertiliser with
the power!

Andy

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/04/2022 22:17, alan_m wrote:
>> But Mike probably has a battery in his mobile phone that last a month
>> without recharging and all as a result of billions spent on battery
>> research over the past 3 decades.
>
> 15 years ago I had a 'phone like that. They are called feature phones,
> and the main feature is the battery life.
>
> Now I have an Android phone and the life is a few days. Despite the
> bigger battery.
>
> Andy
>

Yeah but, calling it an “Android phone” without acknowledging that it’s a
fantastically capable computer makes the battery life comparison rather
irrelevant.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:20:26 +1000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/04/2022 20:32, Jock wrote:
>>>
>>> First part is not true. This is the essence of organic farming, but
>>> that
>>> is a small part of total agricultural output and cannot supply the
>>> needs
>>> of 66 million mouths.
>> Odd that most of the food production during WW2 was essentially
>> what we now call organic farming. Yes, the population has increased
>> substantially since then, but there is no longer any need to use lots of
>> prime agricultural land for all those airfields and other military
>> stuff.

> Do you have a figure for how much land was used by the military?

Nope, most of it was secret for obvious reasons.

> I suspect it's not much.

You'd be wrong with airfields, bombing ranges, where they
practiced infantry attacks etc etc etc.

>>> We used to import much of our meat and dairy from Oz, New Zealand
>>> and South America before joining the common market and those
>>> countries can produce lots of food without needing huge amounts
>>> of fertiliser
>> In fact none with most of the meat production then.
>>
>>> but that still leaves the problem of moving the
>>> product half way around the world in refridgerated ships without
>>> fossil fuels.
>> Trivial, nuke powered ships.
>
> If we've got nukes we can stick them on land and make fertiliser with
> the power!

True, the claim that there would be no food is completely silly.

On 19/04/2022 22:02, Tim+ wrote:
> Yeah but, calling it an “Android phone” without acknowledging that it’s a
> fantastically capable computer makes the battery life comparison rather
> irrelevant.

Can you please tell me what model your 'phone is? Mine isn't
fantastically capable.

Andy

On 18/04/2022 20:49, Andy Burns wrote:
> Tim Lamb wrote:
>
>> Someone more adept than I will kindly fix this URL!
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991351>
>

Typical BBC one-sided story.

Bill

In article <9rb85hpmrs2fui9a80tfcj3k82j0v9q4g3@4ax.com>,
Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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

> >Bless!

> Most appreciated.

You have to remember the likes of Turnip are old. And only interested in
what happens during their now short lifetime. Obviously no kids or
grandkids to think about.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <uph85hdvdrbfso5vhe5ef9fct9pvt5bab2@4ax.com>,
Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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.

> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
> precariously built nuclear reactors.

> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.

And love those who say nuclear will be cheap to build. Name any major UK
civil engineering project recently that has stuck anywhere close to the
estimated cost.

--
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <t31isk$8vh$1@dont-email.me>,
Harry Bloomfield Esq <a@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
> Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
> > 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

> Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
> generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
> adequate conventional power generation.

At the moment, then, no gas no power. And the way things are going gas
prices will make electricity unafforadable for many.

--
*I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it..

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/04/2022 12:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <uph85hdvdrbfso5vhe5ef9fct9pvt5bab2@4ax.com>,
> Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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.
>
>> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
>> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
>> precariously built nuclear reactors.
>
>> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
>> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
>> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.
>
> And love those who say nuclear will be cheap to build. Name any major UK
> civil engineering project recently that has stuck anywhere close to the
> estimated cost.
>

No-one ever said nuclear would be cheap to build, just like no-one said
it would be too cheap to meter. Magnox electricity was always expected
to cost more than that from coal. In the end, it turned out to be very
good value, even allowing for the decommissioning costs.

Hopefully someone will be along in a minute with examples of better
civil projects. But many large projects are always going to over-run in
time and/or cost, and this *is* considered in the planning and
financing, simply because you won't uncover all of the obstacles until
you have moved a lot of earth.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:55:44 +1000, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <9rb85hpmrs2fui9a80tfcj3k82j0v9q4g3@4ax.com>,
> Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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
>
>> >Bless!
>
>> Most appreciated.
>
> You have to remember the likes of Turnip are old. And only interested in
> what happens during their now short lifetime. Obviously no kids or
> grandkids to think about.

Trump has both. It will be interesting to see how Barron turns out,
no fidgetting during the inauguration at all when he was only 11.
Not clear if they had him drugged to the eyeballs to get that result.

On 23 Apr 2022 at 12:58:59 BST, "Dave Plowman <News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk>
wrote:

> In article <uph85hdvdrbfso5vhe5ef9fct9pvt5bab2@4ax.com>,
> Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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.

But we build things for our benefit, not for the benefit of the things we are
building. We should be building things that satisfy the requirements of the
users (that is, the populace), who want sufficient energy when they want it
and at an affordable price. Just as when I flush the loo, I expect it to
perform its function required by me, whenever I do that. Not just sometimes
because of some extraneous factor.

>> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.

Any fool can assert that. The trick is managing to do so. Just saying so
without offering a method of doing so is mere belling-the-cat, which is all
you seem good at. You should go into politics, you'd be good at it.

>> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
>> precariously built nuclear reactors.

What makes you think nuclear reactors are "build hastily" or "built
precariously"? D'ye have example of them, along with reasons why you think
they were thus built?

>> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
>> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
>> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.

This is just frothing at the mouth.

> And love those who say nuclear will be cheap to build. Name any major UK
> civil engineering project recently that has stuck anywhere close to the
> estimated cost.

Aw, Our Dave has jumped in with both feet. Too bad what he jumped into is wet
concrete.

--
When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious what they had in mind was not democratic. In Britain you vote for a government so the government has to listen to you, and if you don't like it you can change it.

Tony Benn

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 03:16:56 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2022 at 12:58:59 BST, "Dave Plowman <News)"
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <uph85hdvdrbfso5vhe5ef9fct9pvt5bab2@4ax.com>,
>> Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> 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.
>
> But we build things for our benefit, not for the benefit of the things
> we are
> building. We should be building things that satisfy the requirements of
> the
> users (that is, the populace), who want sufficient energy when they want
> it
> and at an affordable price. Just as when I flush the loo, I expect it to
> perform its function required by me, whenever I do that. Not just
> sometimes
> because of some extraneous factor.
>
>>> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
>
> Any fool can assert that. The trick is managing to do so. Just saying so
> without offering a method of doing so is mere belling-the-cat, which is
> all
> you seem good at.

> You should go into politics, you'd be good at it.

No, he is just another Red Robbo fuckwit.

>>> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
>>> precariously built nuclear reactors.
>
> What makes you think nuclear reactors are "build hastily" or "built
> precariously"? D'ye have example of them, along with reasons why you
> think
> they were thus built?
>
>>> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
>>> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
>>> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.
>
> This is just frothing at the mouth.
>
>> And love those who say nuclear will be cheap to build. Name any major UK
>> civil engineering project recently that has stuck anywhere close to the
>> estimated cost.
>
> Aw, Our Dave has jumped in with both feet. Too bad what he jumped into
> is wet
> concrete.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
> fusion etc.

You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
(e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.

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

Although it is rather less unlikely that that the "known restrictions"
could be based on flawed, unnecessary, or circumventable assumptions.

#Paul

On 21/04/2022 14:18, #Paul wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
>> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
>> fusion etc.
>
> You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
> interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
> over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
> examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
> in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
> properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
> And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
> now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
> (e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
> because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
> has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
> either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.
>
>> No, but it is inconceivable that know restrictions that have
>> existed for hundreds of years suddenly disappear.
>
> Although it is rather less unlikely that that the "known restrictions"
> could be based on flawed, unnecessary, or circumventable assumptions.
>
I'm quite willing to believe that some future advance in solar panels
will make them far more efficient.

The problem with solar panels is that the peak load on the electricity
system is when everyone gets home from work about 18:00, puts the cooker
one, and especially in winter when they turn on the heating too. Soon
they'll be plugging their cars in to charge which will make things worse.

The problem being that in the winter at 18:00 it's dark, and it doesn't
matter how many solar panels there are their output will be zero.

They're really great for running your air conditioning, but that's not a
major load in the UK.

We need grid scale energy storage. Or a power source that doesn't stop
every night, or when the wind doesn't blow.

I don't know of any grid scale energy storage.

Andy

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 05:24:36 +1000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/04/2022 14:18, #Paul wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
>>> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
>>> fusion etc.
>> You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
>> interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
>> over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
>> examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
>> in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
>> properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
>> And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
>> now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
>> (e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
>> because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
>> has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
>> either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.
>>
>>> No, but it is inconceivable that know restrictions that have
>>> existed for hundreds of years suddenly disappear.

>> Although it is rather less unlikely that that the "known restrictions"
>> could be based on flawed, unnecessary, or circumventable assumptions.
>>
> I'm quite willing to believe that some future advance in solar panels
> will make them far more efficient.

I'm not on the far more efficient given how long we have been doing them
now.

> The problem with solar panels is that the peak load on the electricity
> system is when everyone gets home from work about 18:00, puts the cooker
> one, and especially in winter when they turn on the heating too. Soon
> they'll be plugging their cars in to charge which will make things worse.
>
> The problem being that in the winter at 18:00 it's dark, and it doesn't
> matter how many solar panels there are their output will be zero.
>
> They're really great for running your air conditioning, but that's not a
> major load in the UK.
>
> We need grid scale energy storage.

And we know that isn't feasible if you can't do pumped hydro.

> Or a power source that doesn't stop every night, or when the wind
> doesn't blow.

We know that is nukes.

> I don't know of any grid scale energy storage.

Pumped hydro is that, but few can do that. Australia and Norway
have been doing that for more than half a century now.

On 21 Apr 2022 at 14:18:02 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
>> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
>> fusion etc.
>
> You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
> interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
> over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
> examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
> in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
> properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
> And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
> now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
> (e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
> because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
> has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
> either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.

These are just applications of the basic principles, which have *not* changed.

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Roger Scruton

On 23/04/2022 20:24, Vir Campestris wrote:
> I'm quite willing to believe that some future advance in solar panels
> will make them far more efficient.

They are around 30% efficient now. over 100% is impossible.

Remember they don't create energy, they collect from the sun. If the
energy isn't there, they cant collect any, can they?

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 24/04/2022 09:20, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2022 at 14:18:02 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Last major change was quantum physics, as far as energy engineering is
>>> concerned. 100 years ago. So photoelectric panels, nuclear power, laser
>>> fusion etc.
>>
>> You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
>> interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
>> over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
>> examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
>> in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
>> properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
>> And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
>> now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
>> (e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
>> because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
>> has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
>> either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.
>
> These are just applications of the basic principles, which have *not* changed.
>
Exactly.

BST is the one with no clue.

At a given point a new technology turns up. Might be a steam engine.
Might be a laser. Might be a metal oxide rectifier or a cats whisker
diode or a photoelectric cell.
Science then goes to work to establish how they work, and how much they
might be made to work better.

The first is quite rapid. The second - getting incrementally closer to
'as good as it gets' - takes a bit longer.

Early steam engine were less than 1% efficient. By the time we get to
WWII piston steam engines are up around 20% and steam turbines have
reached nearly 40%, and there they have stuck. Because the way to make
them better than that is to have enormously hot superheated steam and
infeasibly large condensers, and still that only gets you a few percent
more.

Gas turbines which start with extremely hot gases can, when added to a
steam turbine get up to around 65% efficient.

Windmills are already pushing the Betz limit. There is little left to
come other than building them higher.

Solar panels are already pushing their limits.

We are not limited by technology, we are limited by the actual energy in
the coal, gas or wind or sun itself.

The only place there are massive amounts of untapped energy left, is
nuclear materials.

This is not theory, this is not opinion, it is the nearest thing to
facts - objective facts - there is.

If we had the sort of education that was standard in the 1950s, which
was based on sound teaching of basic English and mathematics, we might
have a population with a hope of understanding this.

Instead Blair's Britain got in first and destroyed any educational
discipline there was, and people's knowledge of science is now based on
consumer marketing telling them how wonderful it all will be, after they
have bought the shiny new thing.

Where renewable energy is concerned, it wont be wonderful. It will be a
hell of poverty that is beyond the conception of anyone brought up today.

--
“A 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,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 24 Apr 2022 at 10:46:54 BST, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> Early steam engine were less than 1% efficient. By the time we get to
> WWII piston steam engines are up around 20% and steam turbines have
> reached nearly 40%, and there they have stuck. Because the way to make
> them better than that is to have enormously hot superheated steam and
> infeasibly large condensers, and still that only gets you a few percent
> more.

Efficency is defined (as any 1st year physics undergrad will tell you) as:

useful energy out
-----------------
energy in

and since "useful energy out" can be redefined as "energy in" minus "energy
wasted", you get

energy in - energy wasted
-------------------------
energy in

or, putting it slightly more mathematically:

Ei - Ew
-------
Ei

For a heat engine, each of these energies is directly proportional to the
absolute temperature of the working fluid, so the above can be changed to:

Ti - To
-------
Ti

where Ti is input temperature, and To is output temperature and both are in
Kelvin (K). Steam starts to attack even stainless steel above 600C or so, so
if your input temp is 600C and your output temp is 101C (so the steam doesn't
condense), your efficiency is:

(600+273) - (100+273) / (600+273)

or 57%

You'll find that the same considerations apply to any energy conversion
system, so the notion that it will be possible to make solar panels "far more
efficient" would seem fanciful at best.

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Roger Scruton

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2022 at 14:18:02 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:
>> You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
>> interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
>> over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
>> examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
>> in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
>> properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
>> And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
>> now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
>> (e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
>> because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
>> has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
>> either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.
>
> These are just applications of the basic principles, which have
> *not* changed.

Hilarious -- an understanding of the basic principles, while
usually necessary, is not in any way sufficient when you want
to get any real work done. And the insights by those working
100 years ago, whilst brilliant at the time, are not the same
as a modern understanding.

#Paul

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> Efficency is defined (as any 1st year physics undergrad
> will tell you) as: [...]

That is certainly a useful definition of efficency, and indeed a
very common one, but there are others that are also useful, and
indeed are more useful in some contexts. Please stop this lazy
expectation that your undergraduate degree is somehow the be-all
and end-all of understanding.

#Paul