siwilson wrote:
> siwilson wrote:
> > ogden wrote:
> >> A 75 kWh Tesla battery holds enough energy to boil... *does sums*...
> >> 800 litres of water. I think we'll cope.
> >>
> >> Not much use for burning sausages on my Weber Q though.
> >
> > The newly acquired gin palace has an external connector to plug one of
> > those in.
> >
> <Googles> portable-ish gas bbq's aren't cheap are they?

I got mine for what I thought was a fairly decent price a few years back. When I googled out of curiosity to see what it'd cost me to upgrade from a Q1000 to a Q2000, I realised it was a very, very decent price indeed.

Stephen Packer wrote:
> ogden wrote:
> > Stephen Packer wrote:
> > > And... damn it... no more camping gas!
> >
> > A 75 kWh Tesla battery holds enough energy to boil... *does sums*... 800 litres of water. I think we'll cope.
>
> You've bought a Tesla?

No, a VW Transporter, but a lot of people get them mixed up.

Ace wrote:
> That's obvious, I'm sure, but often seems to get overlooked, as it is
> in the case of EVs. The motor industry's headlong push towards them
> without the world moving at the same pace towards carbon-neutral
> generation is actually quite worrying.
>
> Put simply, if you're using hydrocarbons to generate the power in the
> first place the overall emissions will be significantly higher than
> just burning petrol directly in the vehicle.

The overall emissions, yes. But not necessarily emissions at the point of use. There's merit in simply getting IC engines out of densely-populated cities, even if those emissions are offset elsewhere. Tailpipe emissions are horrendous for urban air quality.

ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>> That's obvious, I'm sure, but often seems to get overlooked, as it is
>> in the case of EVs. The motor industry's headlong push towards them
>> without the world moving at the same pace towards carbon-neutral
>> generation is actually quite worrying.
>>
>> Put simply, if you're using hydrocarbons to generate the power in the
>> first place the overall emissions will be significantly higher than
>> just burning petrol directly in the vehicle.
>
> The overall emissions, yes. But not necessarily emissions at the point of
> use. There's merit in simply getting IC engines out of densely-populated
> cities, even if those emissions are offset elsewhere. Tailpipe emissions
> are horrendous for urban air quality.
>

I went to a nuclear risk management thing at Bristol University and they
reckoned that exposure to London pollution caused a greater reduction in
average life span than being around the Fukushima fuck up.

On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 15:39:50 UTC, ogden wrote:
> Ace wrote:
> > That's obvious, I'm sure, but often seems to get overlooked, as it is
> > in the case of EVs. The motor industry's headlong push towards them
> > without the world moving at the same pace towards carbon-neutral
> > generation is actually quite worrying.
> >
> > Put simply, if you're using hydrocarbons to generate the power in the
> > first place the overall emissions will be significantly higher than
> > just burning petrol directly in the vehicle.
> The overall emissions, yes. But not necessarily emissions at the point of use. There's merit in simply getting IC engines out of densely-populated cities, even if those emissions are offset elsewhere. Tailpipe emissions are horrendous for urban air quality.

There's also efficiency; cars are 'around' 20-35% according to Google, power stations better this, some close to double (based on a trivial amount of searching).

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:03:29 +0000, siwilson
<siwilson@nodamnspam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 14/12/2021 18:58, ogden wrote:

>> A 75 kWh Tesla battery holds enough energy to boil... *does sums*... 800 litres of water. I think we'll cope.
>>
>> Not much use for burning sausages on my Weber Q though.

>The newly acquired gin palace has an external connector to plug one of
>those in.

Plug in what - a Tesla battery, burning sausages or a Weber Q?
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 16:09:09 UTC, Higgins@work wrote:

> I went to a nuclear risk management thing at Bristol University and they
> reckoned that exposure to London pollution caused a greater reduction in
> average life span than being around the Fukushima fuck up.

And yet London's got the longest life expectancy in the UK according to the ONS

(report in 2020:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/lifeexpectancyforlocalareasoftheuk/between2001to2003and2017to2019
)

On 15/12/2021 15:34, ogden wrote:

> siwilson wrote:
>> siwilson wrote:
>>> ogden wrote:
>>>> A 75 kWh Tesla battery holds enough energy to boil... *does sums*...
>>>> 800 litres of water. I think we'll cope.
>>>>
>>>> Not much use for burning sausages on my Weber Q though.
>>>
>>> The newly acquired gin palace has an external connector to plug one of
>>> those in.
>>>
>> <Googles> portable-ish gas bbq's aren't cheap are they?
>
> I got mine for what I thought was a fairly decent price a few years back. When I googled out of curiosity to see what it'd cost me to upgrade from a Q1000 to a Q2000, I realised it was a very, very decent price indeed.

<googles> What's the difference between them?

--
/Simon

On 15/12/2021 16:55, Champ wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:03:29 +0000, siwilson
> <siwilson@nodamnspam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2021 18:58, ogden wrote:
>
>>> A 75 kWh Tesla battery holds enough energy to boil... *does sums*... 800 litres of water. I think we'll cope.
>>>
>>> Not much use for burning sausages on my Weber Q though.
>
>> The newly acquired gin palace has an external connector to plug one of
>> those in.
>
> Plug in what - a Tesla battery, burning sausages or a Weber Q?

Yes.

The latter-er-est.

--
/Simon

On 15/12/2021 16:52, Stephen Packer wrote:
> cars are 'around' 20-35% according to Google, power stations better this, some close to double (based on a trivial amount of searching).

Well power stations will be around 33% thermal to electricity conversion
if they are steam turbines but above 50% if they are combined cycle gas
turbines. We can ignore renewables efficiency, as there is no fossil
fuel, for climate change purposes and probably much the same for the
fuel in nuclear power stations, CCGT, wind and nuclear fission make up
the vast bulk of our electricity.

IC engines can be above 40% efficient but only in a narrow power band so
changing fuel-air intake and idling drop the efficiency whereas an EV
only uses energy when moving and gains a bit when slowing down. I
always though a petrol engine efficiency peaked at maximum torque.

Excuse mixed units; my little diesel car does 15miles/litre if I stay
out of traffic, EVs seem to do up to 5miles per kWh. With a litre of
diesel containing 10kWh of thermal energy I travel 1.5 miles /kWh so
even if the electricity comes from a steam turbine power station it
looks like the overall thermal efficiency is better. This neglects the
better standards of pollution like particulates a power station achieves
or any electrical losses charging the EV or am I missing something?

On 14/12/2021 13:50, wessie wrote:
> Hog <york996@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:39d07054-2829-4065-8c32-51d11ad9748an@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Hydrogen could replace natural gas, although the gas network would
>> require significant re-engineering. The gas would be produced by
>> electrolysis, but in most non industrial applications why on earth
>> would we not just use the electricity directly? with nuclear energy
>> electricity production is effectively unlimited and cheap to produce.
>> Leaving hydrogen in an industrial feedstock/fuel niche.
>
> what I have read is that as an interim measure, hydrogen could be added to
> natural gas in the existing infrastructure.

I attended an on-line lecture a month or so back [1]. Blended hydrogen
in UK pipework and boilers has been tested up to 25% concentration and
found to be safe. The law has (had?) to be changed to allow that much
though as the legal limit is much lower. The intention is to aim for 20%
as that gives some leeway in case the ratio goes too high.

At the moment 20% is just pie in the sky as there is insufficient
'green' hydrogen to inject into the pipes and insufficient locations
capable of injecting it even if there was enough. However it's a step
forward.

One interesting fact: apparently the old 'town gas' could be up to 50%
hydrogen on occasions.

[1] "The role of blended hydrogen in decarbonizing heating", Prof. Zoe
Robinson, Keele University.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPC0cZPkA4w>

Not as technical as I'd hoped but interesting enough.

>
> the hydrogen could be a way to store the off peak energy from wind turbines
>
> I have also read somewhere about the solar arrays used in places like Qatar
> for desalination of water being repurposed or expanded to make hydrogen.
> They are used to shipping LNG around the world so would it be that more
> complex to ship hydrogen to Milford Haven to be pumped into the new(ish)
> pipeline across Mid Wales to Tewkesbury?

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:13:11 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>And then there was the fact it took in waste from other nations, which
>will be wth us for a long lpng time.

That I didn't know, but sure it wasn't for reprocessing? Dunno whether
THORP was around then, but Britain used to reprocess fuel for other
nations at some point. Spent fuel is actually still full of energy;
not all of the fissile part gets burned up and the rest is mostly
U238, which can be made into fissile mterial. Maybe they took it as
feedstock for fast breeders as a gamble against future fuel prices.

Spent fuel would also contain some plutonium, which naturally gets
bred even in ordinary thermal reactors, though probably low-grade i.e.
not bomb material, but still usable in a reactor.

--

-Pip

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:15:30 -0000 (UTC), wessie
<willnotwork@tesco.net> wrote:

>Boots <news@millhouse-communications.co.uk> wrote in
>news:6enn8i-tof.ln1@bilbo.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 15/12/2021 03:37 Pipl penned these words:
>>>> The other inconvenient truth is that Li-xxx batteries are a
>>>> *terrible* solution for road transport.
>>> They're not great for general use. But for a regular commute or
>>> driving around town only they're fine, so long as you can charge up
>>> overnight. Which admittedly would be a problem for many.
>>>
>>
>> Watched a demo / proof of concept video of continuos charging via
>> wireless. Early days but in theory it would vastly extend the range of
>> delivery vehicles since the main routes and the stops would all be
>> topping up the battery leaving only side roads etc to be a drain as it
>> were.
>>
>
>IIRC, when the UKRM OAP group were wandering around Orléans we saw bus
>stops with contactless chargers. Certainly makes sense for buses which will
>have a defined route with fixed stops. That was 2017 I think.

I still think that there should be continuous brass strips along all
routes so that cars can simply pull power off the Grid directly. Of
course, the vehicle would have to track the power feeds accurately, so
a simple slot between the two would do nicely. Who needs all that
complex smart vision technology?

Could be a minor problem on the bits of the road where the lanes
swerve towards each other or cross over, though.

--

-Pip

On 15/12/2021 16:09, Higgins wrote:
> ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com> wrote:

> I went to a nuclear risk management thing at Bristol University and they
> reckoned that exposure to London pollution caused a greater reduction in
> average life span than being around the Fukushima fuck up.

The wind turbine industry has killed and injured far more workers than
the nuclear power industry ever has.[1]

But since these are counted as workplace accidents the figures somehow
don't matter when deciding to go nuclear or not.

[1] Actually *every* source of energy kills more people than nuclear.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=4838faf45467>

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On 15/12/2021 12:17, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 08:40, Ace wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 23:11:31 +0000, Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/12/2021 11:23, Stephen Packer wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't a synthetic hydrocarbon going to have emission issues?
>>>
>>> AIUI, it's synthesised from CO2 and H2O, so it's a carbon-neutral
>>> process
>>
>> Always assuming it's done by using carbon-neutral elctricity, of
>> course.
>>
>> That's obvious, I'm sure, but often seems to get overlooked, as it is
>> in the case of EVs. The motor industry's headlong push towards them
>> without the world moving at the same pace towards carbon-neutral
>> generation is actually quite worrying.
>>
>> Put simply, if you're using hydrocarbons to generate the power in the
>> first place the overal emissions will be significantly higher than
>> just burning petrol directly in the vehicle.
>
> The UK seems to be doing reasonably well, at about a third of energy
> being supplied by renewables. I just hope progress hasn't stalled.

ITYM a third of *electricity* not energy.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:35:21 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>On 15/12/2021 16:09, Higgins wrote:
>> ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I went to a nuclear risk management thing at Bristol University and they
>> reckoned that exposure to London pollution caused a greater reduction in
>> average life span than being around the Fukushima fuck up.
>
>The wind turbine industry has killed and injured far more workers than
>the nuclear power industry ever has.[1]
>
>But since these are counted as workplace accidents the figures somehow
>don't matter when deciding to go nuclear or not.
>
>[1] Actually *every* source of energy kills more people than nuclear.

So the figures suggest. Sometimes skewed by poor working practices and
conditions in third-world countries and a few major accidents, like
the dam collapse in China (150,000+ casuaties in just that one). That
said, I suppose the big ones roughly equate to Chernobyl, Fukushima
Daiichi and Kyshtym.

--

-Pip

On 12/14/2021 11:47 AM, Pipl wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:56:55 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> And unless we work out what to do with our current nuclear polution, I'm
>> not a fan of carrying on with it. Watching Simon Reeves report from
>> Seascale recently only re-inforced my opion. The clean up is horrific.
>
> Bear in mind that Seascale was mostly Gen1 reactors whose primary
> purpose was to hastily cobble together enough Plutonium for bombs, to
> Keep Britain In The Game.
>
> The result, and, who knows, maybe the culture that start engendered,
> should not apply to a modern Gen2+ reactor like Sizewell B and Hinkley
> Point C.
>
AFAICS, nuclear power is ok except for earthquakes (which is more of a
problem anywhere on the Pacific Ocean coast,) and the waste, which lasts
(almost) forever. Transporting waste to a secure and reliable site means
exposing it to terrorist action, and I don't see how you can mitigate that.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS, ST1100 (in memoriam)

Pipl <pluscher@live.co.uk> wrote:

> I still think that there should be continuous brass strips along all
> routes so that cars can simply pull power off the Grid directly. Of
> course, the vehicle would have to track the power feeds accurately, so
> a simple slot between the two would do nicely. Who needs all that
> complex smart vision technology?
>
> Could be a minor problem on the bits of the road where the lanes
> swerve towards each other or cross over, though.

If it's good enough for Scalextric, why not the real world?

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81ypuFJhj7L._AC_SL1500_.jpg

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 15/12/2021 20:13 Mike Fleming penned these words:
> On 14/12/2021 23:49, Boots wrote:
>>
>> No piped gas, comes in 12kg bottles that arrive on the back of a small
>> motorcycle a Honda cub or clone of and live under the worktop Can't see any
>> electric taking off big time when a lot of the cooking is in a Wok.
>
> You can get electric woks.

Trying to convince a mainly ethnic Chinese customer base. Slim chance of that,
wok hei is important and despite the claims of electric hob vendors everyone I
know, every kopitam wants gas flames approaching welding temperatures.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

Stephen Packer wrote:

> And... damn it... no more camping gas!

I went camping with Vic, in Wales, in August (brave choice) and was
impressed by my Trangia on meths.

--
Simon

Ace wrote:

> That's obvious, I'm sure, but often seems to get overlooked, as it is
> in the case of EVs. The motor industry's headlong push towards them
> without the world moving at the same pace towards carbon-neutral
> generation is actually quite worrying.

I saw an interesting turn of phrase on an EV advert (Nissan, I think)
"zero emissions whilst driven".

Charging another matter. Potentially.

--
Simon

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:13:10 +0000, Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 14/12/2021 23:49, Boots wrote:
>>
>> No piped gas, comes in 12kg bottles that arrive on the back of a small
>> motorcycle a Honda cub or clone of and live under the worktop Can't see any
>> electric taking off big time when a lot of the cooking is in a Wok.
>
>You can get electric woks.

Not proper ones though. A big gas flame, and a proper round bottom,
are essential for correct use of a wok. Nothing else gets the heat
intensity that's such a part of Chinese cooking flavours.

I've very much got used to vitroceramic hobs (i.e. glass topped but
not induction) and they do have some advantages, notably the ability
to set a very low heat and eaiser cleaning, but installed a Falcon
range when we re-did our Alsace kitche some years ago, mainly for the
hige wok ring in the middle. Still not decided whether to follow suit
when we finally get round to redoing the one in our apartment in the
Alps.

Installed three new kitchens here so far, all with vitroceramic. I
just don't want the hassle of checking that every single pan is
suitable for induction and explaining to probably the 60% of renters
how exactly to use them. Plus the extra cost, of course.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

Pipl wrote:

> I still think that there should be continuous brass strips along all
> routes so that cars can simply pull power off the Grid directly. Of
> course, the vehicle would have to track the power feeds accurately, so
> a simple slot between the two would do nicely. Who needs all that
> complex smart vision technology?

Bordeaux trams are quite clever in this regard. They have an exposed
contact rail that is only live when the tram is over it.

https://invisiblebordeaux.blogspot.com/2011/12/bordeaux-trams-underground-power.html

--
Simon

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:35:21 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>[1] Actually *every* source of energy kills more people than nuclear.
><https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=4838faf45467>

*ding*

How many coal miners have been killed, and that's before you even
start on those impacted by shit air quality
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

Champ wrote:
> Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> >[1] Actually *every* source of energy kills more people than nuclear.
> ><https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=4838faf45467>
> *ding*
>
> How many coal miners have been killed, and that's before you even
> start on those impacted by shit air quality

Uranium, of course, mines itself.