Christmas lecture

[Another Dave]

It depends what you mean by "better". A lead-acid battery (invented 150 years ago) can return between 60% and 90% of the energy you put into it, so you can only make something a few percent better.

The improvements people are talking about are weight and volume reductions for a given energy capacity which is irrelevant to storing mains type energy levels but IS relevant to, say, electric cars and mobile phones which have to carry their energy with them.

Even so, talking about "orders of magnitude" is nonsense. Lead is dense but it's not THAT dense.

Another Dave

[The Natural Philosopher]

Er that's what a nuclearreactor DOES.

It wouldn't be really.

But a lot of greens and a lot of other businesses would be very put out.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Thats what we are talking about.

Um you cant store 'energy as surplus electricity' except in a battery....and even then arguably your re storing it as chemical energy..

[The Natural Philosopher]

I'd go back and kick Karl Marx in the nuts.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Because it is one of my specualist subjects?

Oh, and so people with 'a very real interest in it actually being right' are the ones to give you an unbiased opinion?

ROFLMFAO!.

*shrug* invest your pension in dried unicorn dung then.

Precisely.

Actually you are wrong, we have batteries that are just about good enough for short range cars. a single order of magnitude might be enough to fly a commercial electric airliner to the USA.

Two orders of magnitude ain't gonna happen with batteries. The ONLY thing with the sort of energy density is atomic fuel.

Physics tells us that. That's why I can say 'aint gonna happen'

[The Natural Philosopher]

best energy density is lithium.We are already quite close to the lightest lithium in batteries possible. Lithium air is potentially almost a order better BUT the technology is awful. Its almost as hard as building a fusion reactor.

[Huge]

As you wish.

[spuorgelgoog]

Nicola Sturgeon already has :-(

Owain

[tim...]

so you say

but how do I know that

So I'm supposed to believe that you are the world's expert, just because you say so

well that's a no!

Short range cars are no good as "main" cars

To get 100% acceptance (which TPTB seem to think is necessary) they need range and cost no more than current cars

well that's not going to happen for domestic transport, is it?

So why aren't these same Physicists explaining all that to the Automotive industry?

It's awash with money. It's not like the can't afford to ask

tim

[tim...]

capacity against both weight and cost.

for use in entry level personal vehicles we need to improve both by a factor of 100 (as in what's annoying referred to by the media as "they need to be

100 times smaller/100 times cheaper")

a single lead-acid battery will "drive" a car for how long before it is flat?

The cost part is also relevant to mains electricity even if the size isn't.

It lead-acid were viable (for this purpose) it's what would be in the current crop of electric cars as it's unbeatable on costs, but it isn't (presumably because the volume/weight is a problem).

tim

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter journeys. Plenty of fast charging points would help too - as would some form of easily changeable power pack common to all. And it's more likely you could make a small battery vehicle with a decent range than a large one at a more economic price.

The costs of various types of car - and fuel - is under government control.

Turnip knows no more about what might happen in the future than anyone else. And his guesses less well informed than many.

The motor industry ain't going to spend unlimited amounts on blind alley research.

[The Natural Philosopher]

They are

Its only you who is taken in.

[tim...]

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

Let the rich drive into town whilst the poor have to walk - gonna be a real vote winner that, isn't it?

the cost of the battery is much the same

only if you subsidise the capital costs

something which might work to start off sales but can't be afforded if 100% of sales are of electric cars

The idea that TPTB are going to let vessels with nuclear fuel in them run around on normal roads driven by uncle Tom Cobley and all is fantasy

well they ARE spending the money

tim

[tim...]

it most certainly is not (only me)

(you should have heard the two "idiots" on "The Papers" last night!)

tim

[mechanic]

He was talking about diesel powered cars. I'm a bit surprised that the govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the future. They are a menace.

[charles]

Then the Government will have to compensate the owners of diesel engined cars. We bought them because the Government recommeded them as creating less polution than petrol ones and reduced road tax to prove it.

[tim...]

he said "diesels etc"

I interpreted that as "diesels and petrol" otherwise the response is "everyone will drive petrol cars then".

on a scale of 1 to 10, where diesel is 10, and electric 0, petrol is a 9.

there would be no point at all banning diesels as route to making everyone take up electric cars

all those taxis and lorries would have to go

tim

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The Nissan Leaf costs from about 17 grand.

It's already what happens in a capitalist society. I take it you hate that?

No it's not. Depends on the capacity.

Or put up the costs of running a petrol/diesel car.

If they become the norm, the prices will fall.

Much of what Turnip says is. Or more accurately, delusion.

They do spend money on, yes. But more accurately on development.

[charles]

Don't forget most buses, too.

[Chris Hogg]

He wasn't suggesting that people have nuclear powered cars, but he was pointing out that only atomic fuel has the energy density necessary to give cars the ranges to match those of today's ICE cars, with the implication that battery powered cars with those ranges would never happen, for obvious reasons.