£100k for two bods. Oooh cheapskates!
505 posts • joined 29 Apr 2010
But EM interference is not news.
Back in ‘85 We had a project to install a mainframe in a site which backed onto the Liverpool/Southport rail line: 1500V DC. The EM survey showed huge induced voltage spikes as a train went past. This site was abandoned.
Somewhat later we had to abandon a project near Blackpool airport. This was blasted by the airfield approach radar.
There is nothing new under the sun.
I think time is the issue here. That the Hubble constant at the Big Bang may be different than now. If we were able to measure H0 now at the CMBR location it might well agree with the local H0. I do not see a way of testing this and we just have to accept the fact and make a rational explanation.
...not only will the days get longer but the moon will fly higher still until eventually it departs orbit! (Yes this will happen; look in Wikipedia). Just think of the fix we will be in then with no tides and very long and cold nights and long red hot days. How's your beach holiday now?
And another thing; some lunatics want to build tidal power plant. Mad! It will slow the earth's rotation even sooner.
Well here is the answer and we are all going to need a bit more than 50p.
Whilst there is the option to go hybrid, if these are plug is it will only provide a marginal reduction to the increased electrical demand. And hybrid vehicles are not fuel efficient as has been proven they use about as much petrol as the equivalent straight direct drive. At this moment sales of petrol cars are increasing and diesel is declining with the possibility that manufacturers will be fined for increasing CO2 emission.
The Post Office are saying they have a problem and fortunately this news has entered into the political arena because this is where the problem originates. They say ignorance is bliss and there is none more blissful than a politician, The decision to go electric is ill founded. Here are the consequences.
The power supply to most dwellings is based on average consumption, whilst you might be able to call on 14kW in your house on average the supply might only be able to provide as little as 750W and as much as 3kW depending where you are and when the property was built, commonly it is 2kW. Vehicle demands are about 3kW for a range of 100 miles and 7kW for 200 miles. This means that your house will now be taking as much as 9kW from the supply, more than 4 times what it was designed to provide. It is ok if a small number of electric vehicles are connected, the system has some flexibility, but if penetration is more than 10% problems will arise as the system will be overloaded and voltage drop will exceed statutory limits. Beyond this point, to make electric vehicles work the network will have to be replaced. To provide power to all electric vehicles using the existing approach would require 4 times the number of substations and all distribution mains will need to be replaced. The resulting disruption would be huge.
The cost would also be huge.
KPMG have reported on recent research into how we can deal with the reducing availability of gas. They estimate the cost of replacing the electrical network at between £150bn to £250bn. Yes, 250 BEEEELION POUNDS! As it happens this is the figure I came up with AND we have to add in the cost of three nuclear power stations at about £35bn each.
Conservationist will say we can use photovoltaic and wind sources, but we need more power not just energy and these will not cut it. Anyone who does not understand the difference between power and energy should not comment. Sadly this group includes most journalist, politicians and ecowarriors. Yes we have to go nuclear; convention power generation will be inadequate after all we are running out of gas.
It is amazing that the government has committed so much expenditure with a short statement and with no opposition. The cost will be more than Falklands, Afghanistan, Iraq, HS1 & 2, Crossrail and all the windfarms put together, How can this be allowed to happen?
You might think that the bright sparks in the executive have an answer, but clearly there is not one single technical mind present. They think it is all about batteries and drivelines. It is not.
If we don't do anything I can see that we might have civil disruption, "charger point rage" incidents, generators in the back of the garage, or the Clarkson view: a generator on the back seat. At the very least planning law should include that all new developments have the capacity to charge vehicles.
There is a solution; we have not looked at alternatives. We need to invest in exhaust scrubbers; this should prolong the life of diesel. We need to invest in fuel cells. OK hydrogen is difficult to produce and store, but we could also use ammonia.
It is a difficult question but there is no doubt that the policy came as a knee jerk reaction. It is not adequate, not fit for purpose and like the poll tax will cause no end of problems.
Time to start protesting.
It would be great to have better batteries but this is not the solution they still require charging.
It is not just the generation capacity it is the distribution network which is inadequate. Recent estimates show we need six additional nuclear power stations at a cost of £120bn. The distribution network has to be replaced or supplemented every street in the country will have to be dug up with huge disruption at a cost of £200bn. That is £16k for every electric vehicle. Then there is the question of rollout. Will this be another broadband debacle?
Would we not be better off going hydrogen and spending this money to make this work?
I have never been clear to whether this has been explained or not and if the following has been factored into the calculations.
When we observe distant object we are also looking at the universe at an older state; further object are older than nearer ones. Is it not the case that OLDER object are faster than nearer ones. It is age that gives the velocity not distance. This thought is prompted by Big Bang theory and that from a single point there are some objects more distant than others i.e. they are going faster.
However if the Hubble constant is measured to be the same in all directions and this says that we are at the centre of the Big Bang. I think this has been disproved.
Doesn't matter whether you do or not it is a question about where do we go next. Fosil fuel is just about dead and renewables will not do it especially when electricity will replace most present fosil consumption. Nuclear is the only way. And big time as well. This means we will have to get into Thorium or we are dead.
I remember some years ago an architect I worked with designed a 12000m2 office with pitched roofs shaped like tits and in the center court a conference suite shaped like bollocks and penis.
He was not amused when I told him that I thought he had some form of fetish.
Seems all architects are the same.
I was thinking about this subject this morning and it is no surprise I came to the conclusion "the only way is nuclear".
Other sources have some use but PV is limited in capacity, and weather supported ie wave and wind are unreliable with highly testing technology.
Do not ever think that tidal power is renewable, it is not. The earth rotates and generates tides. When the ride rises it takes energy from the earth and when it fall the tide pushes the energy back. If we take energy from the tide it is not returned to the earth and THE EARTH WILL SLOW DOWN. OK, so the earth is slowing anyway but do we need to make it worse?
Thorium = Brilliant
Breakeven is 7.4m passengers a year. Lets see now at 24 people per pod that's 30800 trips per year or 35 per minute and they are going every 30 seconds so you actually need 13 tubes. Did someone drop an order of magnitude somewhere?
I hope he is better with SpaceX; it could be whats wrong with Tesla. And it probably accounts for my PayPal bill.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020