The British invention kills BATTERYs!

[Mega]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ectricity.html

Ok, back to earth as i understand it you need a supercopnductor that works @ room temps.............my suspion is if this works its when its in a flaske of liquard Nito.

Mike

[Rajiv]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

I believe the reporter confused a supercapacitor with a superconductor. Much depends upon the volume to power stored and the weight to power stored ratios.

But it does sound promising in the various news stories. Of course, the cost per watt hour is also important.

Here is Natasha Shirshova's website

[ggirod]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Unlike may such breathless articles, this one appears legit. Supercapacitors don't require low temperatures and have been in common use for a while. It does sound like this one could be quite practical, however.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Please explain to me in plain and simple, short sentence, English ( o en espanol, muy facil ) how this invention is going to LOWER my cost of living, especially how this invention is going to lower my monthly electric bill. Or for example, is this invention going to give me much better mileage in my Toyota Echo, and without increasing the purchase price of such a car?

Don't give me any higher math or Greenspanese. Don't give me any pot-head engineering; i.e, that we could live off of sunlight just like plants do. Or if we could live off of sunlight using what the pot-heads now call, "concentrated solar", please explain to me in plain and simple English ( or Spanish ) how that is possible.

Yes, solar energy can be used to help heat water in the Sahara Desert or in any sub-tropical and low-humidity desert. But that is about all that solar is good for. Please explain to me why I am wrong. What is the big break-thru in semi-conductors or compacitors or super-conductors that I need to know about? What is the big C-change ahead?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[ggirod]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Please explain to me in plain and simple, short sentence, English ( o en espanol, muy facil ) how this invention is going to LOWER my cost of living

First, It won't lower your electric bill probably ever. It will, however, probably decrease the size and weight of laptops and netbooks, make them able to recharge very quickly, and reduce their annoying habit of catching fire now and again. Since it won't wear out, it will outlast the device it powers and, being carbon and glass, it won't be a problem to recycle or dispose. Ditto for powering cell phones and other personal electronics.

Ultimately, when you and I go to buy our 2020 hybrid cars (my Saturn will then be 20 years old and finally wearing out after running with excellent mileage, I expect) that car will probably have a supercapacitor used for regenerative braking which means the energy wasted in stopping the car will be stored to start the car moving again. That will save operating costs.

Now, for concentrated solar ... think of an old fashioned coal or nuke power plant running with a steam turbine turning the generator.

Now imagine that you take the magnifying glass you used to use to burn holes in paper on sunny summer days and you use that concentrated heat to make steam. The steam can then run the turbine and voila -- power. Instead of a magnifying glass, they use a big reflector and instead of water steam they use lower temperature freon-like compounds, but the principle is the same. You concentrate the sunlight with fairly cheap very large reflectors, heat up a liquid to make a gas and run a generator with the high pressure gas.

In the right setting concentrated solar can be quite efficient. In fact, I believe there is a large installation planned for North Africa in the desert and huge power lines will carry the power all the way to Europe, where people will be happy to pay the cheaper price for it.

The Sea Change is not coming. In fact, what we will see are incremental improvements in all of our technologies. Each improvement will enable some new solution to be implemented and over time the net effect will be substantial. Last time I checked there was no silver bullet. Each source of renewable energy has its application space and it can serve very well in its niche. Foolishness abounds in the realm of marketing and people love to point to stupidly conceived alternative energy projects that were funded by people who did little more than read press releases. There is no help for those people.

In the far north, it is biomass that keeps my house warm at very low cost with zero net carbon. Solar is impractical because of the long cloudy winters with short days, wind power would be wonderful if I were closer to the lake, but in the midst of plentiful biomass (wood) I am too sheltered from the wind. So, my alternative energy works quite well, my EPA certified stove does not cause my neighbors' eyes to burn from smoke, and my house is pleasantly toasty in a manner few other technologies can match.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

First, It won't lower your electric bill probably ever. It will, however, probably decrease the size and weight of laptops and netbooks, make them able to recharge very quickly, and reduce their annoying habit of catching fire now and again. Since it won't wear out, it will outlast the device it powers and, being carbon and glass, it won't be a problem to recycle or dispose. Ditto for powering cell phones and other personal electronics.

Ultimately, when you and I go to buy our 2020 hybrid cars (my Saturn will then be 20 years old and finally wearing out after running with excellent mileage, I expect) that car will probably have a supercapacitor used for regenerative braking which means the energy wasted in stopping the car will be stored to start the car moving again. That will save operating costs.

Now, for concentrated solar ... think of an old fashioned coal or nuke power plant running with a steam turbine turning the generator.

Now imagine that you take the magnifying glass you used to use to burn holes in paper on sunny summer days and you use that concentrated heat to make steam. The steam can then run the turbine and voila -- power. Instead of a magnifying glass, they use a big reflector and instead of water steam they use lower temperature freon-like compounds, but the principle is the same. You concentrate the sunlight with fairly cheap very large reflectors, heat up a liquid to make a gas and run a generator with the high pressure gas.

In the right setting concentrated solar can be quite efficient. In fact, I believe there is a large installation planned for North Africa in the desert and huge power lines will carry the power all the way to Europe, where people will be happy to pay the cheaper price for it.

The Sea Change is not coming. In fact, what we will see are incremental improvements in all of our technologies. Each improvement will enable some new solution to be implemented and over time the net effect will be substantial. Last time I checked there was no silver bullet. Each source of renewable energy has its application space and it can serve very well in its niche. Foolishness abounds in the realm of marketing and people love to point to stupidly conceived alternative energy projects that were funded by people who did little more than read press releases. There is no help for those people.

In the far north, it is biomass that keeps my house warm at very low cost with zero net carbon. Solar is impractical because of the long cloudy winters with short days, wind power would be wonderful if I were closer to the lake, but in the midst of plentiful biomass (wood) I am too sheltered from the wind. So, my alternative energy works quite well, my EPA certified stove does not cause my neighbors' eyes to burn from smoke, and my house is pleasantly toasty in a manner few other technologies can match.

Yes, I see no big C-change ahead, either. And yes, I too will be buying my first 4-cylinder hybrid car with regenerative braking, probably around 2015 or 2020.

As far as "concentrated solar" is concerned, why not try "concentrated nuclear power"? Thus, receive much, much, MUCH more power, with the same (or less) investment as you would put into a concentrated solar site. Why not build a 2000 mega-watt nuclear plant, and build three such plants next to each other, therefore build a 6000 mega-watt site?

A hidden advantage of nuclear is that a 6000 mega-watt site could be built next to a major world city, not way off in the Sahara Desert. So energy loss thru transmission could be minimized.

I was in business for a while, and I learned to appreciate what the term, "bang for the buck" meant. Nukes pay a big bang for the buck. Hydro-electric also pays a big bang for the buck, but hydro involves transmission losses.

New York City is going to be energized by hydro from Quebec, especially hydro-electric from around James Bay. The losses in transmission of power from James Bay to NYC are going to be great.

Yes, biomass is how I heat my house too. In plain English, that means I burn wood just like people did centuries ago.

Yes, a wood stove is great for heating a home. But the rub with wood ( or as they say, "biomass" ) is the labour in carrying quarter-cut logs from the shed outside to the stove inside. Each quarter-cut log weighs about 10 pounds, and some weigh as much as 20 pounds. So a wheel-barrel load of ten such logs weighs about 100 pounds, and maybe even more.

This is all fine and dandy for an 18 year-old to do. But this is a big chore for a senior citizen living alone. And this chore has to be done every day, regardless of weather, regardless of whether it is dark out or light.

A quarter-cut cord of wood costs $200 now on Vancouver Island, and the stacking of the wood has to be done by the purchaser. So that involves additional labour. And the wood always has to be kept bone-dry in a shed, along with kindling and parrafin to get the fire going, in case the fire goes out inside the wood stove.

Needless to say, I don't see much of a future for this world using biomass as an energy supply--- except that carrying wood every day/night from your shed to your house keeps you thin. Also, not many parts of this world have forests that grow as well as they do on Vancouver Island or in Upper Michigan, so burning biomass is expensive, not to mention damaging to the environment.

The amount of air pollution from a village using wood stoves to heat their homes with rivals that of a large coal-fired electric plant. This is an issue that the pot-heads advocating "biomass" as an energy supply would rather not discuss.:rolleyes:

[*T*]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Please explain to me in plain and simple, short sentence, English ( o en espanol, muy facil ) how this invention is going to LOWER my cost of living, especially how this invention is going to lower my monthly electric bill. Or for example, is this invention going to give me much better mileage in my Toyota Echo, and without increasing the purchase price of such a car?

Don't give me any higher math or Greenspanese. Don't give me any pot-head engineering; i.e, that we could live off of sunlight just like plants do. Or if we could live off of sunlight using what the pot-heads now call, "concentrated solar", please explain to me in plain and simple English ( or Spanish ) how that is possible.

Yes, solar energy can be used to help heat water in the Sahara Desert or in any sub-tropical and low-humidity desert. But that is about all that solar is good for. Please explain to me why I am wrong. What is the big break-thru in semi-conductors or compacitors or super-conductors that I need to know about? What is the big C-change ahead?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of what use is a child?

[*T*]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ectricity.html

I know the guy quoted in the article.

[*T*]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ectricity.html

Ok, back to earth as i understand it you need a supercopnductor that works @ room temps.............my suspion is if this works its when its in a flaske of liquard Nito.

Mike

Incidentally Mike, this is precisely the kind of work that will suffer in the research funding cuts that I was whingeing about.

[GRG55]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Of what use is a child?

Children give adults an excuse to play...;)

[Starving Steve]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Yes, my wood stove is very modern. It was placed into my log home in 1992 when the home was built. Yes, that would mean the stove meets the silly EPA certification or guidelines.

Reality check: my stove pollutes just like a coal-fired power plant pollutes. My smoke emits carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulates, and filth. Some of this pollution helps trees grow, and some of this pollution makes acid rain and gives people lung cancer.

A village burning wood would have total emissions which rival that of a coal-fired power plant.

I won't even get into the issue of trace amounts of radon and thorium and uranium emitted from wood stoves. And when scrap roofing materials are burned, arsenic can be emitted into the atmosphere. ( Let's not even open that can of worms. )

The human body and plants and trees do adapt to pollution, so I am not concerned. But if everyone did burn wood, the air would look like the air does now in the cities of China and India.... That would make for a rather foggy and dusty environment, very bleak and grey.

The good news is that filth and dust from coal and wood-burning COOLS the Earth because the filth and dust act as a condensation nuclei for water vapour which makes clouds and fog, and that grey fog blocks-out sunlight and COOLS the Earth..... But let's not open that can of worms, either because that would challenge the assumptions in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

I could never work for the EPA nor Greenpeace nor the Sierra Club. I wouldn't even last a day with them.
But my point is that the environmentalists are righteous hypocrits of the worst type. And that is why I dislike that entire bunch.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Burn cedar in your wood stove, and your stove would emit cyanide gas because all cedars make cyanide to combat insects. Some cedars are so rich in cyanide that you can smell the strong sweet smell of cyanide when you saw them.

As I said, I would not last one day working for the EPA, Environment Canada, and that entire bunch.:rolleyes:

[ggirod]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Needless to say, I don't see much of a future for this world using biomass as an energy supply--- except that carrying wood every day/night from your shed to your house keeps you thin. Also, not many parts of this world have forests that grow as well as they do on Vancouver Island or in Upper Michigan, so burning biomass is expensive, not to mention damaging to the environment.

The amount of air pollution from a village using wood stoves to heat their homes with rivals that of a large coal-fired electric plant. This is an issue that the pot-heads advocating "biomass" as an energy supply would rather not discuss.:rolleyes:

This is all fine and dandy for an 18 year-old to do. But this is a big chore for a senior citizen living alone. And this chore has to be done every day, regardless of weather, regardless of whether it is dark out or light.

In upper MI, waste wood and other waste products are being turned into fuel. Biomass will become biodiesel. So, biomass is by no means a trivial supply of energy. It simply awaits investment appropriate to the supply of biomass and some then more solar energy will be harvested. Lest you investigate and find the reputed shortcomings of the biofuel application, I happen to think that turning waste wood to biofuel beats poisoning our poor people with formaldehyde by making waste wood into particle board and using it for FEMA trailers. Your opinion and mileage may vary.

Further, my EPA woodstove does not pollute the air significantly. Unlike coal, that peppers the planet with toxic mercury, burning wood simply releases the CO2 that was consumed earlier in making the wood. No net increase in carbon, and by burning it, I am harvesting a few decades of recent sunlight. By maintaining my woodland I am sequestering much more CO2 than I produce, so my contribution is a net CO2 sink. Those (coke heads - nice pun, eh?) who favor coal carefully avoid the fact that most carnivorous fish cannot be eaten in reasonable quantities in the Midwest US or from China because they have accumulated way, way, WAY, too much mercury from coal plants. So, should you return to Duluth, you should probably be circumspect until you read the MN recommendations. We are talking about mercury that is implicated in autism, brain damage, and more other diseases and developmental disabilities than I can name.

Since I have adequate dead and blown down wood to heat my house on my land, I have zero impact on the environment though I do burn it, hence I release some of its carbon a decade early. Eventually, everything organic, including us, becomes CO2, so tell the shallow true believer environmentalists "just don't die." Just don't try that on somebody like me, because I will point out how much CO2 is saved by my demise.

Stoves conforming to EPA and, I am sure, modern Canadian standards, do not pollute very much at all. The afterburner at the top of the stove captures unburned particulates so aside from briefly when starting the fire, there is no visible smoke from dry wood. If firewood is expensive and you do not have woodland to harvest downed wood, then other solutions are for you. I would probably recommend you move somewhere to the east of Vancouver, where the population is lower and the wood supply and land availability is greater. Or, maybe you decide that living in a more concentrated urban social environment is for you, and conformation with the urban standards and requirements is an adequate trade-off for the excitement and security that an urban environment provides.

I, too, am a senior citizen living alone and I noticed how keeping the fire going was a great contribution to my well being. I have to go down 4' to the ground, (with nominally 200-300 inches of snow per year around here, a house well above surrounding terrain is a good idea) go about 40' to the woodpile, bend and stretch repeatedly to select the wood for the load, fill my carrier with about 50-60 pounds of wood, and carry it back up 4' of stairs and bend/stretch to arrange it near the stove. Lather, Rinse, Repeat ... 3 times a day for nominal weather, 5 times a day for a real cold snap. Don the headlight if I am too lazy to get the chores done during the 8 or so hours of daylight in winter. Then, in between, I dare not be too lazy because the fire will burn down and my attention to feed it is required.

Overall, it is a wonderful contribution to my health and once in a while my knees protest; warning me that I need to attend to my lifestyle lest I feel the twinge more often. A worshiper of Gaia might claim that the wood fire brought them closer to a loving relationship with Mother Earth. An environmentalist would try to claim CO2 neutrality. An economist might claim that the heat was a tax-free dividend on the investment in the land. A fitness nut would point at the benefits of the physical activity accrued while heating ones domicile. I am a senior citizen, so I get to claim all of the above.:p And as for me, I also take breaks from typing at the computer to gaze at the beautiful flames in my stove........ Where was I? ......... Oh, yes ...

As I pointed out, many locations have an optimum source of energy available. If I were to relocate five miles north, near the shore of Lake Superior, I would have astounding wind power available. One day, not too long from now, there will be masses of turbines just over the horizon from the shore of Lake Superior and the midwest will have a new source of power. My bet is that the distribution will reach Chicago and maybe farther south.

I agree very strongly that nuclear power makes a lot of sense. To the extent that Thorium and Uranium are available, they provide a lot of bang for the buck. We should be building nuke plants wherever sources of renewable power are not economical and efficient. Solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas (especially for peaking with a wind primary), and even some coal (when inescapable) are all required and all applicable in appropriate locations and contexts. Nuclear power excels elsewhere.

As for hydro, you may want to check whether Quebec hydro and Ontario Hydro can provide the kind of energy it takes to export big amounts to the US. (that is, beyond modest excess power). If so, it is wonderful and I can strongly support paying our northern neighbors for their foresight, investment, and hard work to provide hydro power. If not, Canada deserves to have their own cheap common power to energize their economy. Quebec and Ontario don't have a lot of sun in the winter and they have lots of snow melt so hydro is for them. Arizona, Nevada, and California have lots of sun, so they can use it effectively. The midwest/western US and coastal / Great Lakes areas of the US and Canada have wind in abundance so they should use it. Other areas can use nukes for clean energy. Simple, really, if you apply reason and motivation to the solution. Difficult, really, if you let the vested interests keep people doing the same maladaptive things they have been for the last decade.

I hope this clarifies the issues surrounding energy for the nation. It is not simple, knee jerk statements based on successes and failures of individual projects. Those statements are worthless, and only with an understanding of the problem can a reasonable solution be proposed.

[DToM67]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Yes, a wood stove is great for heating a home. But the rub with wood ( or as they say, "biomass" ) is the labour in carrying quarter-cut logs from the shed outside to the stove inside. Each quarter-cut log weighs about 10 pounds, and some weigh as much as 20 pounds. So a wheel-barrel load of ten such logs weighs about 100 pounds, and maybe even more.

This is all fine and dandy for an 18 year-old to do. But this is a big chore for a senior citizen living alone. And this chore has to be done every day, regardless of weather, regardless of whether it is dark out or light.

A quarter-cut cord of wood costs $200 now on Vancouver Island, and the stacking of the wood has to be done by the purchaser. So that involves additional labour. And the wood always has to be kept bone-dry in a shed, along with kindling and parrafin to get the fire going, in case the fire goes out inside the wood stove.

Needless to say, I don't see much of a future for this world using biomass as an energy supply--- except that carrying wood every day/night from your shed to your house keeps you thin. Also, not many parts of this world have forests that grow as well as they do on Vancouver Island or in Upper Michigan, so burning biomass is expensive, not to mention damaging to the environment.

The amount of air pollution from a village using wood stoves to heat their homes with rivals that of a large coal-fired electric plant. This is an issue that the pot-heads advocating "biomass" as an energy supply would rather not discuss.:rolleyes:

I used to heat my former home - a century cabin with wood - that I cut & split myself. Not only is it a lot of work, but one must cut this year for next, as wood must be properly aged to avoid creosote build-up, and potential chimney fires.

But its the aforementioned loading and management of the stove which really does make one appreciate the convenience of natural gas heat or similar.

Then there's the other factors...
Waking up to an extremely cold cabin one night (because I allowed the stove to nearly go out) I sleepily crawled out of bed & went out to the porch to bring in some logs. I hurriedly stacked logs in my arms, and as I turned to go back inside I noticed a pack of wolves (steam rising from their bodies) out on the ice of my frozen-over pond. And me, in the all-together.:eek: Needless to say I made a hasty retreat.

There was also the occasion I woke in the middle of the night to hear what appeared to be an old coal-fired locomotive coming through my cabin. The dampers on the stove had been left full-open... The fire had raged so ferociously that the stove pulsed in gusts. Flames leaped from each damper, with each gust, and the doors glowed an eerie cherry red.:eek: Thankfully we didn't experience a chimney fire.

Lots to think about if heating with wood, the old-fashion way. I've since considered pellet stoves, but am reluctant to be tied to a 'product'.

[ggirod]

Re: The British invention kills BATTERYs!

Lots to think about if heating with wood, the old-fashion way. I've since considered pellet stoves, but am reluctant to be tied to a 'product'.

Different strokes for different folks. Wood heat definitely has constraints, and mastering your stove is crucial. It is not for everybody, but for those who master the technology, enjoy the process, and treasure the results, it is a wonderful way to heat one's home. Consider the investment required to fund buying fuel oil, natural gas, or electricity, for heating one's home. Will the price increase? You are right ... maybe it is not worth it to go with wood ... then go with the alternatives. Maybe it IS worth it ... then go with wood.