Maybe we are not doomed after all

12324252628

Comments

  • Pross said:

    you can make hydrocarbons with the Fischer-Tropsch reaction out of CO and H2. Obviously, you need to produce H2 first, which is energy intense, so hydrogen would be a better solution. But it is possible to make petrol without oil.

    Even considering how inefficient it is, I believe it is a better solution than batteries, which are completely unsuitable to store large amount of energy, are environmentally questionable and do not last very long

    Doesn't that still create the same issue though i.e. when burnt you get CO2 going into the atmosphere?

    Also, as you point out, it requires hydrogen so if you are going to be producing hydrogen on that sort of scale you may as well just use it directly in a hydrogen fuel cell car surely? The problem is producing that amount cleanly.
    I presume you get CO by partial reduction of CO2, so no, it can be net zero. CO is a greenhouse gas anyway, so all good.
    Yes, using hydrogen directly is better, but storing hydrocarbons is easier, bearing in mind the storage and distribution network already exists and works well.
    In my ideal world, a mix of the three will be used… electric for city transport, hydrogen for long distance transport, including urban areas and net zero hydrocarbons for transport away from urban areas. Most vehicles would be hybrid H2-batteries, as the motor is the same, just the energy storage is different. There might be combustion engines with less performance, but more choice of fuel… could be hydrocarbons, ethanol… basically whatever can be burned safely

    left the forum March 2023
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,551
    Pross said:
    There's been a bit of a blip in the amazing story of offshore wind deployment. The biggest developments are currently sulking.
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,415
    What we really need to do is to clone dinosaurs from blood taken from a mosquito preserved in Amber, breed millions of the things, kill 'em and bury them deep. Then when they are ready, drill down and draw off the oil. 100% sustainable fuel. Simple.


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • in other interesting news, there is non robust evidence of bacterial life on a planet about 100 light years away… which, if confirmed, would be the most extraordinary discovery in the history of mankind…
    left the forum March 2023
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,415

    in other interesting news, there is non robust evidence of bacterial life on a planet about 100 light years away… which, if confirmed, would be the most extraordinary discovery in the history of mankind…

    Does it produce oil? Maybe we can exploit that too?


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • Pross said:

    The issue with EVs is that we want to go from a landscape where there are petrol, diesel, GPL and hybrid vehicles to suit all needs to one system only, which broadly speaking only works for those who make short journeys and own a driveway with a charging point.
    The charging network will not be ready by 2030 and probably won't be ready for 2035 either.
    A more gradual introduction helps, battery operated EVs will quickly become the go to option for the above mentioned, but the real solution would be to offer a range of options... so hydrogen for those who do not have the luxury of a private charging point or have to drive further, maybe hybrid vehicles with the caveat that all fuel has to be sustainable biofuel, if there is such a thing.
    Basically not one technology for all, which suits nobody.
    Personally, I would rather pay 3 or 4 quid a litre for sustainable net zero fuel than having the inconvenience of a battery operated EV with the current network of charging points.

    I'm not sure 200-300 miles can be called a short journey, lack of charging points is still the main issue for me though.

    Does such fuel exist that can be produced in sufficient volume without having a negative impact on food production? If it was that easy then I'm sure we'd already be going down that route
    the range advertised is purely theoretical, my. petrol car has a 400 miles range, but I have never gone as far, you sim0ly refuel a lot before… same for EV, realistically you will charge to 80% and recharge when you get to 20-30%, so you real range is probably 150 miles at best. Fast charging points are capped at 80%. The most staggering figure is that each 10 miles of range cost about a thousand pounds in battery, which in turn only lasts about ten years at best. They are basically rubbish and they want us to buy them

    left the forum March 2023
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,435
    I’ve had colleagues with electric cars who regularly get 250 miles. Depends on the car obviously but they manage most journeys without needing to charge.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 2,894
    Pross said:

    I’ve had colleagues with electric cars who regularly get 250 miles. Depends on the car obviously but they manage most journeys without needing to charge.

    Yep, the more premium models seem to be basically good enough for all but a few edge cases, most of which seem to involve driving for unsafe lengths of time without sufficient breaks, so long as you are able to do a teeny bit of planning.

    Battery degradation is obviously an issue, but most figures I've seen haven't been anywhere near what the doom mongers wish.



  • Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,196
    edited September 2023

    Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.



    It seems it is if you buy a Tesla.

    Nice looking car by the way. To view in a photo they look reasonably small but in reality they're big cars, deceptive.
  • Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.



    It seems it is if you buy a Tesla.

    Nice looking car by the way. To view in a photo they look reasonably small but in reality they're big cars, deceptive.
    Thanks.

    As you say they are deceptively large. It’s a lot more spacious inside than my wife’s XC40.

    As seems to be the case with most things these days, people’s opinions are widely polarised with electric car zealots and those who wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

    I’m in neither. I don’t think electric cars are solely the answer but once the price comes down, which is happening rapidly, they are a great option for a large demographic.

    The extension of the ban on pure petrol and diesel to 2035 is pure nonsense and politicking. By that point 99% will be some kind of hybrid anyway which was always going to be 2035.


    Toyota hybrid engines are engineering genius. They are the best option in the short term.
  • Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.



    It seems it is if you buy a Tesla.

    Nice looking car by the way. To view in a photo they look reasonably small but in reality they're big cars, deceptive.
    Thanks.

    As you say they are deceptively large. It’s a lot more spacious inside than my wife’s XC40.

    As seems to be the case with most things these days, people’s opinions are widely polarised with electric car zealots and those who wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

    I’m in neither. I don’t think electric cars are solely the answer but once the price comes down, which is happening rapidly, they are a great option for a large demographic.

    The extension of the ban on pure petrol and diesel to 2035 is pure nonsense and politicking. By that point 99% will be some kind of hybrid anyway which was always going to be 2035.


    Toyota hybrid engines are engineering genius. They are the best option in the short term.
    Instinctively hybrid felt like a good idea but mainstream thinking seems to suggest they are the worse of both worlds.

    Could you expand on why you see them as genius.
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,415

    Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.



    It seems it is if you buy a Tesla.

    Nice looking car by the way. To view in a photo they look reasonably small but in reality they're big cars, deceptive.
    Thanks.

    As you say they are deceptively large. It’s a lot more spacious inside than my wife’s XC40.

    As seems to be the case with most things these days, people’s opinions are widely polarised with electric car zealots and those who wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

    I’m in neither. I don’t think electric cars are solely the answer but once the price comes down, which is happening rapidly, they are a great option for a large demographic.

    The extension of the ban on pure petrol and diesel to 2035 is pure nonsense and politicking. By that point 99% will be some kind of hybrid anyway which was always going to be 2035.


    Toyota hybrid engines are engineering genius. They are the best option in the short term.
    Instinctively hybrid felt like a good idea but mainstream thinking seems to suggest they are the worse of both worlds.

    Could you expand on why you see them as genius.

    I too have heard that they are pretty poor as a stopgap between the two technologies. A bit like a washer-drier machine. They were particularly rubbish.
    However, a person at work has a Tucson Plug-in hybrid and they love it. Partly because they have solar panels at home and can charge it for free at work (currently). However, due to the original purchase price of the vehicle being over £40k they have to pay an additional £355 per year which they weren't told about when buying it.


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • I must admit I did enjoy my hire hybrid Lexus a few years ago, despite it being a big modern hulk of a thing. Got 55mpg out of it in the mountains.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 2,894

    Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.



    It seems it is if you buy a Tesla.

    Nice looking car by the way. To view in a photo they look reasonably small but in reality they're big cars, deceptive.
    Thanks.

    As you say they are deceptively large. It’s a lot more spacious inside than my wife’s XC40.

    As seems to be the case with most things these days, people’s opinions are widely polarised with electric car zealots and those who wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

    I’m in neither. I don’t think electric cars are solely the answer but once the price comes down, which is happening rapidly, they are a great option for a large demographic.

    The extension of the ban on pure petrol and diesel to 2035 is pure nonsense and politicking. By that point 99% will be some kind of hybrid anyway which was always going to be 2035.


    Toyota hybrid engines are engineering genius. They are the best option in the short term.
    Instinctively hybrid felt like a good idea but mainstream thinking seems to suggest they are the worse of both worlds.

    Could you expand on why you see them as genius.

    I too have heard that they are pretty poor as a stopgap between the two technologies. A bit like a washer-drier machine. They were particularly rubbish.
    However, a person at work has a Tucson Plug-in hybrid and they love it. Partly because they have solar panels at home and can charge it for free at work (currently). However, due to the original purchase price of the vehicle being over £40k they have to pay an additional £355 per year which they weren't told about when buying it.
    For plug in hybrids you end up with big heavy lump of engine that the batteries need to carry, and then a big heavy lump of batteries that the engine needs to accelerate.

    Plus you've now effectively got two drivetrain systems that can go wrong.

    Having said that my in laws love their plug in hybrid. It's basically free motoring for 95% of their trips, but without any range anxiety around longer trips.
  • Jezyboy said:

    Around town my Ioniq 5 does well over 300 mile and have had 350 in summer. The advertised range is 278 I believe.

    I use the eco mode and regen braking.

    I charge it at work with our solar panels. Makes perfect sense. I understand that’s not the case for everyone.

    Like all arguments it’s not black and white.



    It seems it is if you buy a Tesla.

    Nice looking car by the way. To view in a photo they look reasonably small but in reality they're big cars, deceptive.
    Thanks.

    As you say they are deceptively large. It’s a lot more spacious inside than my wife’s XC40.

    As seems to be the case with most things these days, people’s opinions are widely polarised with electric car zealots and those who wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

    I’m in neither. I don’t think electric cars are solely the answer but once the price comes down, which is happening rapidly, they are a great option for a large demographic.

    The extension of the ban on pure petrol and diesel to 2035 is pure nonsense and politicking. By that point 99% will be some kind of hybrid anyway which was always going to be 2035.


    Toyota hybrid engines are engineering genius. They are the best option in the short term.
    Instinctively hybrid felt like a good idea but mainstream thinking seems to suggest they are the worse of both worlds.

    Could you expand on why you see them as genius.

    I too have heard that they are pretty poor as a stopgap between the two technologies. A bit like a washer-drier machine. They were particularly rubbish.
    However, a person at work has a Tucson Plug-in hybrid and they love it. Partly because they have solar panels at home and can charge it for free at work (currently). However, due to the original purchase price of the vehicle being over £40k they have to pay an additional £355 per year which they weren't told about when buying it.
    For plug in hybrids you end up with big heavy lump of engine that the batteries need to carry, and then a big heavy lump of batteries that the engine needs to accelerate.

    Plus you've now effectively got two drivetrain systems that can go wrong.

    Having said that my in laws love their plug in hybrid. It's basically free motoring for 95% of their trips, but without any range anxiety around longer trips.
    Was thinking exactly the same yet somehow the Toyota Pious manages to score highly in used car reliability surveys. Maybe it's an extremely well polished chrome plated turd of an idea.
    ================================
    Cake is just weakness entering the body
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    Interestingly, lego has called off its search to find a non-oil based replacement material for its bricks.

    In the early days, the belief was that it was easier to find this magic material or this new material” that would solve the sustainability issue, Lego’s chief executive Niels Christiansen told the FT, but “that doesn’t seem to be there. We tested hundreds and hundreds of materials. It’s just not been possible to find a material like that.”
  • Interestingly, lego has called off its search to find a non-oil based replacement material for its bricks.

    In the early days, the belief was that it was easier to find this magic material or this new material” that would solve the sustainability issue, Lego’s chief executive Niels Christiansen told the FT, but “that doesn’t seem to be there. We tested hundreds and hundreds of materials. It’s just not been possible to find a material like that.”
    Not recyclable either. At least they are not single use.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,594

    Interestingly, lego has called off its search to find a non-oil based replacement material for its bricks.

    In the early days, the belief was that it was easier to find this magic material or this new material” that would solve the sustainability issue, Lego’s chief executive Niels Christiansen told the FT, but “that doesn’t seem to be there. We tested hundreds and hundreds of materials. It’s just not been possible to find a material like that.”
    On the plus side I have some 50 year old bricks that are a little faded but otherwise still good. The flat pieces have got a bit brittle from UV damage.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,304
    edited September 2023

    Interestingly, lego has called off its search to find a non-oil based replacement material for its bricks.

    In the early days, the belief was that it was easier to find this magic material or this new material” that would solve the sustainability issue, Lego’s chief executive Niels Christiansen told the FT, but “that doesn’t seem to be there. We tested hundreds and hundreds of materials. It’s just not been possible to find a material like that.”
    Not recyclable either. At least they are not single use.
    Incredibly reusable as you say, which is arguably more important.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • pangolin said:

    Interestingly, lego has called off its search to find a non-oil based replacement material for its bricks.

    In the early days, the belief was that it was easier to find this magic material or this new material” that would solve the sustainability issue, Lego’s chief executive Niels Christiansen told the FT, but “that doesn’t seem to be there. We tested hundreds and hundreds of materials. It’s just not been possible to find a material like that.”
    Not recyclable either. At least they are not single use.
    Incredibly reusable as you say, which is arguably more important.

    The same goes for plastic bags v. paper ones... factor in the massive difference in packed volume for transport, and the argument for paper bags is definitely not clear-cut.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,196
    edited September 2023


  • Bloody Legos, the hypocrisy!
  • I mean, protesting when you're made of flippin oil.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,594

    I mean, protesting when you're made of flippin oil.

    Where's the hypocrisy?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,196
    edited October 2023
    Projectile fusion is a new approach to inertially confined fusion (ICF) that is simpler, more energy efficient, and has lower physics risk. Inertial fusion is a pulsed process, like an internal combustion engine. Each target releases a large amount of energy. A pulsed approach gives great design flexibility, trading off energy per shot and frequency. Our aim is the lowest risk plant design possible. High energy per shot reduces physics risk, and slower frequency and small overall plant size reduce the engineering risk.

    https://www.csar.org.uk/lectures/2021-2022/tbc_20220523/
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,196
    The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and First Light Fusion have signed an agreement for the design and construction of a facility to house the company's new net energy gain demonstrator, Machine 4, at the authority's Culham Campus in Oxfordshire.

    Nuclear fusion is the process by which two light nuclei combine to form a single heavier nucleus, releasing a large amount of energy. First Light's method uses the same physics proven last month by the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the USA, but "combines it with a unique approach which involves firing a projectile at a fuel pellet to force it to fuse and produce energy".
    https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Construction-start-for-First-Light-Fusion-s-demons
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,517
    https://citywire.com/wealth-manager/news/hold-the-front-page-daily-mail-parent-in-esg-venture-fund-launch/a2431724?re=114990&refea=1146525

    The Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) has partnered with New York-based asset manager Moore Capital Management to launch a new venture capital fund focused on the energy transition.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,551

    https://citywire.com/wealth-manager/news/hold-the-front-page-daily-mail-parent-in-esg-venture-fund-launch/a2431724?re=114990&refea=1146525

    The Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) has partnered with New York-based asset manager Moore Capital Management to launch a new venture capital fund focused on the energy transition.
    Without wishing to sound like someone on another thread, that's small change really.