EV batteries. Well this is interesting..yikes

Kittyfrisk

^  I'm old enough to put out a fire by simply frothing at the mouth... providing there are sufficient clouds to shout at 

hywelg

Sporky said:

I don't think converting petrol stations from storing petrol to storing hydrogen is a trivial undertaking. Transporting hydrogen isn't like transporting petrol either. 

As I recall, hydrogen is mostly made from fossil fuels. Turning water into hydrogen isn't straightforward IIRC. 

I'm not anti hydrogen as part of a strategy, but it's not a dead simple switch. 

We already have a transport system for hydrogen thats currently used for gas. 

I didn't know until recently that town gas that was made from coal was approximately 70% hydrogen and that was successfully distributed to home in the era before North Sea Gas. So it is possible to move it by gas mains. 

Hydrogen will end up being used a lot and research will improve efficiency of production but only if governments give the right signals to industry which at the moment they are not.

There is a big problem with heat pumps for home heating. For them to work economically insulation standards need to be higher and unfortunately it is not possible to do that on the old housing stock in this country. EWI and IWI are not compatible with much of our old housing stock, brickwork mostly but stone also, these materials need to breathe to allow moisture to evaporate,  blocking this evaporation path will do serious damage to an old house. Yes higher temperature heat pumps might become available but they will likely either be too bulky, noisy, costly or uneconomical to run. 

darthed1981

hywelg said:

Sporky said:

I don't think converting petrol stations from storing petrol to storing hydrogen is a trivial undertaking. Transporting hydrogen isn't like transporting petrol either. 

As I recall, hydrogen is mostly made from fossil fuels. Turning water into hydrogen isn't straightforward IIRC. 

I'm not anti hydrogen as part of a strategy, but it's not a dead simple switch. 

We already have a transport system for hydrogen thats currently used for gas. 

No we don't.

Hydrogen is teeny-tiny - the smallest atom in the universe.. so while it COULD be distributed for heating replacing natural gas - you would need to replace the majority of the network to do it as at the minute millions of tonnes of very expensive hydrogen would piss away through the pipes.

...and again, you might as well just transport the electricity and use it for heating rather than use it to create hydrogen and transport THAT.

What is the fascination on here "we must burn some shit - I don't trust this new fangled 'lectric..."...

hywelg

darthed1981 said:

hywelg said:

Sporky said:

I don't think converting petrol stations from storing petrol to storing hydrogen is a trivial undertaking. Transporting hydrogen isn't like transporting petrol either. 

As I recall, hydrogen is mostly made from fossil fuels. Turning water into hydrogen isn't straightforward IIRC. 

I'm not anti hydrogen as part of a strategy, but it's not a dead simple switch. 

We already have a transport system for hydrogen thats currently used for gas. 

No we don't.

Hydrogen is teeny-tiny - the smallest atom in the universe.. so while it COULD be distributed for heating replacing natural gas - you would need to replace the majority of the network to do it as at the minute millions of tonnes of very expensive hydrogen would piss away through the pipes.

...and again, you might as well just transport the electricity and use it for heating rather than use it to create hydrogen and transport THAT.

What is the fascination on here "we must burn some shit - I don't trust this new fangled 'lectric..."...

You sure about that?  My house has an Edwardian gas pipe coming into the house , lead coated in thick brittle bitumen that happily carried town gas (read my previous comment re Town Gas being 70% Hydrogen). So the mains has system used to be capable of transporting hydrogen.

And your flippant comment about just transporting the electrons instead missed the point. The entire electricity network is not capable of supplying electricity to every building if everyone swaps to electricity. I found that out when I requested a  3ph supply to my house. I was told by Western Power that I was lucky as not many other properties has it installed and if everyone wanted it they couldnt cope. And the other problem you glossed over with your comment was that you can only store electricity with great difficulty, whereas storage of hydrogen is a lot simpler given that battery tech isn't up to the job on a national scale.

So , whilst there are technical difficulties with Hydrogen there are equal difficulties with other options.And bear in mind we are at the VHS  / Betamax stage at the moment

darthed1981

hywelg said:

So , whilst there are technical difficulties with Hydrogen there are equal difficulties with other options.And bear in mind we are at the VHS  / Betamax stage at the moment

We aren't though.  We are at the VHS is selling by the thousands and some people are refusing to buy anything until somebody makes something they like more stage...  basically some of us seem to be waiting for laserdisc.

Also that's a circular argument - there are problems with electric, there are problems with hydrogen - its not like they are putting both out there and letting the market decide, the planet has officially or unofficially gone with Battery EV as it's the most mature tech and we need to get this switch done, now.

Heating is going electric - yes the grid needs upgrading but it won't mean everyone needs three phases, not even a little bit, and they are already pointing out that the problem really only comes if everyone puts their car on charge when they get in from work, when the grid is already at peak.

Edit: sorry, yes I'm sure about that.  It's always been a problem with hydrogen, mix it with something else and of course the problem goes away, but then it isn't hydrogen and doesn't just produce water when you burn it.  We can't burn carbon molecules to make energy any more, we just can't.

Danny1969

Hydrogen is just not an option. As it's been pointed out you need gas or electric to separate it from the water or other compounds  / elements. If every EV switched to hydrogen then the grid would need to make 70% ish more electric than it would if everybody just used Lithium batteries. 

Then there's the transportation problem. Storing it as a gas involves high pressures. Storing it as a liquid involves extremely low temperatures because it's boiling point is so low. 

I know lithium batteries have problems but it's possible to recycle it, make a battery from it without cobalt, create a solid state electrolyte instead of a gel ..... all the problems are solvable in time. 

From an engineers point of view you always consider the load first before you design the system. Putting electricity from wind turbine and pumped hydro storage directly into EV batteries is the lightest load for the biggest machine in the UK ... which is the national grid. 

Offset

JEM said:

That photo literally shows bikes fitted with panniers and child seats.

I wouldn't have put my daughter in a bicycle child-seat when she was that age.  Not because I'm anti-bicycle - because there are so many fucktard car and lorry drivers out there.  

snowblind

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

Chalky

snowblind said:

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

What is the alternative to money?  

Philly_Q

Chalky said:

snowblind said:

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

What is the alternative to money?  

Barter.  Robbery.  Droit du seigneur.

hollywoodrox

snowblind said:

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

Venus Project 

hollywoodrox

Chalky said:

snowblind said:

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

What is the alternative to money?  

Venus Project  or Socialism/Communism run by a beneficial AI 
a vast pool of self driving electric micro cars available to whoever needs them but most people 
will be pursuing a life of leisure ,further education , the arts  ,inventing . Those whose life is only rippled by work can fulfil maintenance  nursing  and other needs  but most labour will be done by intelligent machines  making the best use of the vast natural resources of the world 

Chalky

hollywoodrox said:

Chalky said:

snowblind said:

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

What is the alternative to money?  

Venus Project  or Socialism/Communism run by a beneficial AI 
a vast pool of self driving electric micro cars available to whoever needs them but most people 
will be pursuing a life of leisure ,further education , the arts  ,inventing . Those whose life is only rippled by work can fulfil maintenance  nursing  and other needs  but most labour will be done by intelligent machines  making the best use of the vast natural resources of the world 

Sounds like being a drone in a hive.

snowblind

Don't need an alternative to money. Simply do away with it and base motivation on need instead. Consider the intellectual energies that go into all things financial. That is a lot of cognitive capacity which is expended with the result of actually producing precisely nothing. Imagine if those energies were instead devoted to say biomedical research, unhindered by the concept of monetary cost. Where would our science take us? All that is really required is a change of motivation. If you remove money then (applying a little intelligence) instead of focusing on "how to get more money" you can work to produce things that are useful and serve the world as a whole. At the same time you remove the overhead of having to produce vast quantities of resources to support the parasites who do nothing but push numbers around so they can funnel resources in their own direction. There would be more people producing things so you'd end up having to work less on an individual basis.
Consider the resources dumped into the global militaries instead used for terraforming Mars and Venus. Instead of wasting this planet we could extend to two new ones and perhaps even further afield. Instead of inventing new and creative ways to kill just about every living thing on this planet we could seed new ones and unleash all the potential therefrom.

There are other benefits too which are largely self-evident. The only flaw in the whole concept is it requires a general level of rational thought which eludes a significant proportion of our species.


 

Kittyfrisk

Chalky said:

hollywoodrox said:

Chalky said:

snowblind said:

Part of the problem is that we always consider these things in monetary terms. If we were a little bit smarter we would do away with money then we could more usefully apply our energies to addressing the real issues instead of framing things in relation to what is simply an act of faith. The use of money places artificial limitations on everything and if nothing else it reduces the efficiency of any process due to the overhead of keeping track of an unnecessary fiction. 

Unfortunately the concept is so embedded that it will taken a fairly significant change in our general understanding to even consider society without it. 

What is the alternative to money?  

Venus Project  or Socialism/Communism run by a beneficial AI 
a vast pool of self driving electric micro cars available to whoever needs them but most people 
will be pursuing a life of leisure ,further education , the arts  ,inventing . Those whose life is only rippled by work can fulfil maintenance  nursing  and other needs  but most labour will be done by intelligent machines  making the best use of the vast natural resources of the world 

Sounds like being a drone in a hive.

Do you know what drones actually do?
https://backyardbeekeeping.iamcountryside.com/beekeeping-101/the-vital-role-the-drone-plays-in-the-beehive/

"only the fastest, strongest and most nimble drone reaches the queen and wins the privilege of mating with her—and then dies a rather explosive death as the very act of mating causes his endophallus to be ripped from his body. All of the weaker, less robust drones remain at the end of the drone comet, keeping their DNA out of the gene pool. "

Chalky

snowblind said:

Don't need an alternative to money. Simply do away with it and base motivation on need instead. Consider the intellectual energies that go into all things financial. That is a lot of cognitive capacity which is expended with the result of actually producing precisely nothing. Imagine if those energies were instead devoted to say biomedical research, unhindered by the concept of monetary cost. Where would our science take us? All that is really required is a change of motivation. If you remove money then (applying a little intelligence) instead of focusing on "how to get more money" you can work to produce things that are useful and serve the world as a whole. At the same time you remove the overhead of having to produce vast quantities of resources to support the parasites who do nothing but push numbers around so they can funnel resources in their own direction. There would be more people producing things so you'd end up having to work less on an individual basis.
Consider the resources dumped into the global militaries instead used for terraforming Mars and Venus. Instead of wasting this planet we could extend to two new ones and perhaps even further afield. Instead of inventing new and creative ways to kill just about every living thing on this planet we could seed new ones and unleash all the potential therefrom.

There are other benefits too which are largely self-evident. The only flaw in the whole concept is it requires a general level of rational thought which eludes a significant proportion of our species.


 

The only flaw is that it is inhuman.  Society relies on a complex web of decisions and actions.  Where will the mysterious motivation come from for someone to clean the toilets?

goldtop

Chalky said:

snowblind said:

Don't need an alternative to money. Simply do away with it and base motivation on need instead. Consider the intellectual energies that go into all things financial. That is a lot of cognitive capacity which is expended with the result of actually producing precisely nothing. Imagine if those energies were instead devoted to say biomedical research, unhindered by the concept of monetary cost. Where would our science take us? All that is really required is a change of motivation. If you remove money then (applying a little intelligence) instead of focusing on "how to get more money" you can work to produce things that are useful and serve the world as a whole. At the same time you remove the overhead of having to produce vast quantities of resources to support the parasites who do nothing but push numbers around so they can funnel resources in their own direction. There would be more people producing things so you'd end up having to work less on an individual basis.
Consider the resources dumped into the global militaries instead used for terraforming Mars and Venus. Instead of wasting this planet we could extend to two new ones and perhaps even further afield. Instead of inventing new and creative ways to kill just about every living thing on this planet we could seed new ones and unleash all the potential therefrom.

There are other benefits too which are largely self-evident. The only flaw in the whole concept is it requires a general level of rational thought which eludes a significant proportion of our species.


 

The only flaw is that it is inhuman.  Society relies on a complex web of decisions and actions.  Where will the mysterious motivation come from for someone to clean the toilets?

So the Japanese are inhuman with mysterious motivation?



That's just football. You could - if you wanted to - check on how the Japanese get their kids to clean toilets in school. You could look at other communities, too, that all share such lowly tasks. It's not magic. 

And "society relies on" discussion is a bit odd - our industrial/military society isn't working, except for a tiny percentage and only when measured by wealth. 

snowblind

That is where the requirement for a little intelligence comes in. If we're smart enough to realize toilets are a benefit then a: we could grasp the concept of not making a mess of them in the first place and b: that if they need cleaning you just do it.
Such things do happen. There are plenty of examples of cultures that have existed without money. Part of the issue with money is how it shapes and twists our motivation. As an example consider "the war on drugs". Humans and indeed many other forms of life enjoy the consumption of chemicals that alter the normal state of existence. You are just a bag of chemistry so the ability and the desire to muck about with said chemistry is integral to the system. If you accept you can't remove the motivation to consume drugs how do you stop the war? Remove the incentive to create and supply. If there is no benefit gained from producing large quantities of whatever then there is no motivation to do it. This in turn frees up all the resources used to combat supply for more worthwhile and creative pursuits. Also don't need to dig up and refine a bunch of metals to turn into weapons to fight the war etc etc etc. None of this is rocket science.

And for those that offer the hive/drone counter-argument which is the better option; a cooperative existence wherein you don't need to fight for the basics for survival, where you contribute to the best of your ability just because it is mutually beneficial to the planet as a whole and where you aren't carrying the burden of an army of non-productive consumers or what we have now?

Money is an entrenched concept. Its use and the drive to acquire limitless amounts of it are drilled into us almost from birth, largely to serve the needs of the minority who benefit from the concept in the first place.

Interestingly if you ask AI about the concepts being discussed here the conclusion it comes to is that yes, raised intelligence could ultimately lead to some form of utopia but that humans are probably too stupid and inflexible to realize it.

Chalky

Ah, the old "if people were intelligent they would agree with my dystopian views" argument.  Too Trump-like for me.

snowblind

I thought I was pushing for a utopian rather than a dystopian system. Needs of the many etc.

And definitely not "Trump-like". IQ45 wouldn't understand the concept of utopia any more than he understands that no, magnets aren't destroyed by water or that injecting disinfectant is bad for you. 

He is, though, symptomatic of one of the issues we face which is our insistence on putting unsuitable individuals in control of our affairs. The "orange jesus" is just one in a long list of people who have gained disproportionate influence through what can only be determined to be poor judgement by the general population. That said, if the tv show "The traitors" tells us anything it is that groups are easily led and manipulated by a well-motivated liar. 

TBF it is often hard to find clear, accurate and unbiased information and verifiable facts so making judgements is a fraught process.

Circling back somewhat circuitously to the original topic, lithium batteries are a partial solution to a problem but one which introduces many of its own. One feature is that lithium batteries are a profitable solution which on the face of it tick a number of boxes to give the appearance of helping to address the wider issue of climate change.

Hydrogen would be a better long term solution but most of the counter arguments center around the cost of developing and building the distribution infrastructure. Achieving suitable energy density to compete with hydrocarbons will be, in the short term at least, "expensive". Chicken and egg situation. We can't use H2 because we don't have the infrastructure. Nobody is using hydrogen so no point building the infrastructure. There is little financial return in building infrastructure ( look to electricity grids, water treatment systems, roads etc for comparisons) especially over the short term. Precisely because change needs to happen over a short period the investment is regarded as risky. Couple that with pushback from those making a very nice living thank you very much from the status quo and we are where we are. Imagine how we might approach the solution if there was no burden of financial considerations.

Somehow the trade-off between having a habitable environment vs a few years of good shareholder returns falls on the side of the investors. We're not good at planning long-term and contemplation of life for generations to come eludes most of us, largely because we're too busy struggling to get along in the present.