We do - and it says nothing in reality

No new battery technology and no answers to the questions regarding grid stability

Basically theoretical within the generating life of HPC

Ditto for single household AD systems - if we start reducing waste then we have no fuel

Barney

Exactly - plus we need big rotational high inertia generation to maintain grid stability - when the grid is stable, locking in small renewable based invertor generation is feasible

To add more invertor based generation will need to add a central "heartbeat" to synchronise the invertor as the grid becomes increasingly unstable

Invertors also cannot generate high fault currents - without which runaway tripping and massive outages are a real problem

HV/DC interconnects don't help at all in this respect

If it was all so easy we'd be doing it now other than fossil fuels are still (too) cheap

Barney

Posted By: barneyif we start reducing waste then we have no fuel

Poo, food waste, garden waste?

Posted By: barneyThis is all nonsense without a shred of hard physics in sight

Good man

Posted By: barneyIf it was all so easy we'd be doing it now other than fossil fuels are still (too) cheap

Yes, 100 years ago we understood the physics of thermodynamics pretty well, but we had a large number of small fires in housing, not solar heating homes with large thermal stores in the basements. There is a reason for that.

Posted By: SteamyTea

This is all nonsense without a shred of hard physics in sight

Good man" alt="" src="http:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" >

You boffins are terrible, smirking together.
Your job is to provide the reality-check physics - doesn't mean that the rest of us should shut up unless we can do the numbers just like you. Every profession, including mine (architecture) no doubt, is notorious for only reading stuff that confirms what they already understand (albeit with micro-incremental modification to keep things a bit interesting), dismissing the rest as beneath contempt.
Visionaries, with some exceptions, are not boffins, but polymaths who just smell what's coming, by non-scientific means. I'm fed up with experiencing this - I wish I could more deeply respect boffins, if they would come out of the buinker and respect modes-of-knowing that are complementary (sp?) to the scientific.

I neither have a bunker mentality nor am I a smirker, Tom

Our job is not to provide reality check physics - as an engineer, I work to provide the best solution for a particular problem that society perceives at that time

We are generally open minded, collaborative, and often asked to do for a shilling what any idiot can do for a pound - and to do it so that simple folk can understand it.

As for your modes of "knowing" that are complimentary to the scientific then what does that actually mean - basically it seems to be some sort of wishful thinking, fingers crossed behind back, hipster jargon that actually means that "we can come up with the ideas - but we need the "how guys" to get their hands dirty and make it so" - and we are not liked when we point out a few basic fundamental laws of physics (and often economics) and suggest the "idea" was a load of betty swollocks - not "on message" basically

So - Lesson 1 - go and research biogas generation usually based on anaerobic digestion - and then make a few observations as to why it's done - is it for the energy or is it to solve a problem of quantity of material that is "there". If I tell you that Mogden treatment plant serves 2.1 million consumers and can barely provide half the power it needs to operate from biogas generation let alone export that for use by those 2.1 million consumers then you start to get the picture - not enough energy density in 2.1 million poos

Lesson 2 - go and do a bit of research on people like SITA or GDF Suez - over 50% of the plant designs I've been involved in will never get built as the energy economics make it totally pointless - and that includes huge subsidies in the form of diversion from landfill taxes and the like - basically, a fear of a lack of fuel over the lifecycle of the plant - it's why UK is shipping waste to Scandinavia - to keep their "incinerators" burning

So, when you've done that, start listening to the "how guys" - we are usually at least two steps ahead of what suddenly emerges as the "new thinking"" that will save us all

There is very little in the way of "new physics" - generally it is only a change in "energy economics" - fanfare headlines from Tesla et al need robust scrutiny based on the physics - not blind acceptance by the masses.

Sometimes the Emperor really does have no clothes on

Barney

Posted By: fostertom
Your job is to provide the reality-check physics

Visionaries, with some exceptions, are not boffins, but polymaths who just smell what's coming,

You evidently have no knowledge of the history of science. For a start a genuine polymath is a "boffin".

I can't think of any progress in any technical area that hasn't been created by boffins.

Take that transformative technology of the present age, the computer. The first moves towards a practical machine were made by Babbage and Ada Lovelace, both "boffins". The prime movers of the electronic computer were Alan Turing and John von Neumann, both mathematicians primarily, with a tendency to the polymath. The electronics needed for the modern computer to work are based on a long string of development, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Hertz, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley and a host of others, "boffins" all. The ideas come from "boffins" as well as development of the techniques needed to implement the ideas.

Yes, anyone can imagine virtually anything; Lucian of Samosata imagined a journey to the moon in the 2nd century, as did Cyrano de Bergerac in the 17th century. But works of fantasy were all that they were. In my childhood a moon landing was still in the realms of science fiction, although the physical practicalities had been worked out (by "boffins") it still needed several years of work (by "boffins") to actually make the journey possible.

Please give me an example of some technological development that hasn't come from "boffins".

Even the world of architecture can't function without "boffins" to actually make those structures that some architects imagine.

Sigh - I give in
Anyway it's started raining - who could have imagined that?

Please don't be too hard on poor old Fostertom, it's not his fault, he is only an architect! As my son in law structural engineer says - architects have the vision and artistry, it's up to the SEs of this world to make sure that the architects dreams don't fall down

Posted By: fostertombut this is rarely so in the wider scientist to 'crazy visionary' relationship

Your not doing yourself any favours here Tom

Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary - architects have the vision and artistry,

Quite so; a good architect should be able to think and imagine spaces in 3 dimensions amongst other things. That's something I, along with most other people, find very difficult to do.

I find it odd that, in my experience, people with a scientific / engineering background are usually quite open and receptive to "artistic" endeavours, but many liberal arty types are very dismissive of scientific and engineering ones. "Your job is to provide the reality-check physics"

I don't want to be tarred with that kind of architectural brush - sounds like, within the architect/SE relationship you and I wd find plenty of mutual respect (esp as you do indeed seem a bit of a polymath - which neither a pure scientist nor a pure architect is, billit - "people ... who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social, and physical").

As long as I don't diverge and start talking what futurism I've pieced together? Or as long as that has no 'technical' content (or homeopathy)? Then I'm on scientists' turf?

I don't want to trespass - I want to be reality-checked by open-minded boffins who treat what I offer as somewhere to dig for the unexpected, and who I respect for that - instead of swift reflex dismissal - "most of your ideas are just not feasible and can't exist" - by which neither side gets mind-expanded.

For example, to get at least mind-experiment response to

Posted By: fostertomIf true, what wd be the consequences for elect supply?

It's an invitation.

I must say, GBF is extremely valuable with the former, my 'university of the air'.

Trespass all you like, Tom - in my design teams we are collegiate - everyone is welcome to give a view, all and any opinions have equal weight around the table - and I really don't care if they come from one of our millennial grads or from some grizzled old campaigner - I want the right solution for that client based on the brief - and with a view to adding value for the design effort - but when the talking is done, then I want evidence based solutions that I will carry the can for.

I do find it depressing when one of my young female engineers is trying to have a grown up conversation with the ego ridden project architect in terms of fenestration and daylight factors (ie what do we want) and the proposed size of windows that have at least some scientific balance in terms of energy in and out of the space - and I get really bloody angry when she's fobbed off with some babble about Corbusier and the "I cannot give you space without giving you light" crap - sure, at the cost of a Megawatt of cooling in a building that is now heading for full HVAC and comfort cooling when we could (easily) have gone with natural vent and night cooling strategies

My point is only that wishing hard for something to be true, doesn't make it true unless the science says it's true - and in that we have to consider the economics

Regards

Barney

Indeed - there are many opportunities - but only for the receptive - and the cost consultant

Not generally that cost effective in big office land though - needs a more sympathetic space, client and budget

Barney

If grid stability is a problem, then it seems that Germany has cracked it. Measured by interruption duration the German grid is 4 x more stable than the UK's (and it's improving), despite the use of renewables in Germany being well over double the proportion in the UK and growing - http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-grid-keeps-getting-more-reliable/150/537/89595/

The proportion of renewable net generation in Germany in 2014 was 28.7%, compared to the UK's 12.2% - https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/Publications/Statistics/electricity_in_europe/entsoe_electricity_in_europe_2014.pdf