exchemist

Yes, it will inevitably be a combination of technologies, just as has always been the case in fact. Regarding population, the world's population is forecast to reach a plateau in the middle of this century. Basically the birthrate goes down as societies educate and empower women, because then they start to exert more control over whether and when to have babies. But energy consumption is more about GDP than the pure number of people - see next para. Regarding efficiency of energy utilisation, there are some charts that show energy intensity, i.e. energy used per unit GDP output has more or les halved in the last 50 years, so we are getting better at our use of energy in driving economic growth, but the rate of GDP growth greatly outstrips that, so at the moment the trend in energy use is still upward, while the impact of low carbon energy use is still only showing a modest effect. There are some good charts here if you are interested in this: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-intensity

Well yes, all these are part of the mix. One you don’t mention is power from the tides. This, in places like the UK with a large tidal range, has real potential. This long list goes to show that there are many technologies in play, simultaneously. There is no special point in singling out any one of them, as the best choice depends on the location. For transport applications requiring a lot of power e.g ships, heavy duty trucks, or high power/weight ratio e .g aviation, an intermediate fuel, manufactured using green electricity, may be required. This could be hydrogen, or a closely related fuel such as ammonia, which is being seriously looked at for ships. In the meantime for ships, natural gas is starting to be used, as this emits a lot less CO2 per kWh than oil. I saw one of the new Brittany Ferries gas powered car ferries, last time I was in Portsmouth: She's a big ship: 41,000grt, capacity for 550 cars and sails between Portsmouth and Santander in Spain. So there is serious money going into these technologies. I stress again that all this is already happening, at a commercial scale, so we are way beyond just talking about the options. Except perhaps for hydrogen, which still suffers from the inefficiency of today’s electrolytic cells. That’s a problem. Time will tell which ones will get the biggest take-up, based on the economics. Again, this will depend on the location.

Yes I think we all got that it was sarcastic. What was stupid was that your sarcasm was seemingly intended to ridicule the practicality of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Casting doubt on the viability of these has been one of your themes ever since you showed up here. A number of us have tried to set you straight about that, but it seems to be an uphill struggle. On your battery question, yes battery storage is already done commercially and I have already commented on further battery developments. Other forms of storage of intermittent energy production include hydroelectric (pumped) storage and thermal storage - a sort of battery for storing heat, using the latent heat released when a substance changes phase. Here is one example I found at random on the internet:https://sunamp.com/en-gb/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/Thermino-Brochure-Digital-Artwork_Low_Res_aad-uk-th-br-v1.pdf On your question about how we should ideally move forward, I agree with others here that a "master plan" in detail may not be a sensible approach, partly due to the vicissitudes of politics and partly because the pace and direction of invention and commercialisation, in a free-market economy, is such that any plan would be quite likely to be overtaken by developments that were not foreseen when it was devised. However the elements that a government should pursue, as vigorously as public opinion will permit, must obviously include both incentives and support for more efficient use of energy (public transport, insulation, fuel economy, waste heat re-use) and incentives and support for moving away from fossil fuel based energy. The forms those incentives take, or should take, in practice vary from country to country. I'll give you one example. One absurdity in the UK is that electricity bills include a surcharge to help fund the development of the network to accommodate the shift to renewables. However gas bills do not, as gas uses a legacy network that is not being developed. It should be the other way round, so that legacy fossil fuel use funds the shift to renewables. That would make gas more expensive and electricity cheaper which would also be an incentive to shift over. But politically this is dynamite, as most people heat their houses with gas and for poor people, increasing their gas bills too much could make them unable to afford to heat them in winter, given that these people are the least able to invest in a new, electricity based, heating system. So this kind of thing has to be handled, politically, with kid gloves, even though the science is obvious.

Drop the hysteria, can't you? What's this stupid shit about squirrels, suddenly? Calm down, for Christ's sake. In the UK, >40% of our electricity last year was already coming from renewable sources: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable and this goes up every year. I don't have the figure for the USA but there is no reason why it also can't get a high proportion from renewables. It is true that because renewable sources (wind, solar, tidal) are intermittent, one needs some base load capacity from a constant source. Nuclear can - and does - do that. There is interesting work going on on small modular nukes, which could cut the costs considerably. We might indeed also need to run a small amount of gas generation, for peak shaving when there is no sun or wind (what is known in the business as "dunkelflaute" conditions), but it won't be much and current gas reserves will last for a very long time at that rate. Battery technology also advances rapidly - there is considerable interest now in a sodium battery system which would reduce dependence on lithium, and so on. There is also a lot that can be done to alter the demand pattern, e.g. by smart tariffs and smart controllers in the home, to encourage consumption by industry and households when renewable supply is plentiful, e.g. when you run your kitchen appliances, or even when you draw power for heating. We are just at the beginning of exploring that. It's a dynamic world and new options spring up all the time. There is no need to get in a panic and start wittering about effing squirrels.😀 What car you personally happen to run today is neither here nor there. The switch to renewable electricity is already here and well advanced. You just have either not noticed, because you have not read about these things, or you are part of a silly rearguard action to try to slow it down because you are terrified of minor changes to the way you live. I don't know which. I accept that in rural communities (Iowa is pretty sparsely populated, isn't it?) these changes will come later than for those of us who live in cities. But don't make the error of extrapolating your particular circumstances to the whole of humanity. Most of the world is not like Iowa. Though I notice you say you live an apartment complex, not a remote farmstead. You can charge an EV at home just by getting a plug installed. Costs a few dollars. We've got them in some of the lamp posts in my street now, and more appear every year. I really think that if you are genuine, i.e. not some troll trying to push a pro-fossil fuel agenda by advertising alarmist videos, you ought to do a bit of reading on the internet on the subject. I've already provided a few pointers. But I'm in London, not Iowa, so the amount of help I can give you is limited. Look up the US renewable electricity percentage, and the plans for expansion, on a government utility website (not some crappy disinformation site, of which are many). Find out how you can charge an EV at home, by looking at a manufacturer's website. And so on. This stuff is all around us already. It is not some bobble hat wearer's fantasy, it's real and it's here.

I do wish you would stop posting hysterical propaganda videos. It is sheer crap to say the world is going to run out of fossil fuel. The problem fossil fuel suppliers face today is of resources they own becoming worth less due to the energy transition away from their use. Solar and wind energy are already cheaper than that from fossil fuel, potentially leaving them with “stranded” assets: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01356-y People like the Saudis are very worried their income will dry up, even though they have plenty of oil in the ground still. As for the energy situation 50 years from now, we won’t be using much fossil fuel at all, not because it has run out, but because we will have chosen to stop using it. There seems to be a political/ industrial fossil fuel lobby, in the US particularly, that is currently employing a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt to undermine and slow down the energy transition. In your previous thread you posted videos seeking to undermine confidence in electric vehicles. In the present thread you post videos trying to whip up fears that we urgently need more fossil fuel. Am I wrong to suspect an agenda in your posting behaviour? Or have you perhaps been suckered by these people?

This list contains many questionable elements and does not indicate a crisis in energy supply, as you seem to assume it does. There is plenty of energy available at affordable cost today. Economies are not in worldwide recession due to energy supply or its cost. As @Endy0816 points out, there are regional constraints on supply, cost and distribution. Those do not constitute a crisis, except possibly in some specific locations, requiring local solutions. There is a climate crisis, requiring a rapid transition away from the use of fossil fuels for energy. What you pay for your gasoline is well below what we all have paid for it in Europe for decades now. (Current UK price is ~£1.5 per litre, i.e. ~ $7/USg.) So if that is your idea of a "crisis", you have led a sheltered life - and need to drive a less thirsty vehicle. American society is notoriously energy-hungry - even worse than W Europe - and we all need to use less to help the energy transition. But framing this as a "crisis" is wrong use of the word and is unhelpful. We can all use less, and we can all use more carbon-free energy. It's just a matter of political will - always difficult in a democracy, since voters prefer the status quo until they are really convinced.

You still have not described what energy crisis you refer to. There is plenty of energy available today, at affordable cost. There is a looming crisis due to climate change, from the burning of fossil fuels specifically. That is a climate change crisis, rather than an energy crisis per se. Is that what you are taking about? Or something else? And no, I'm not going to watch some YouTube video. The forum rules say discussion should be made possible on the basis of the words posted, without having to refer to external material. So it is for you, please, to explain in your own words what crisis you are referring to. Then we can have a discussion about it: first whether we agree there is indeed such a crisis; and second, if so, what to do about it. OK?

First, what energy “crisis” have you in mind”? Different people may understand different things by that word.

OK. However the Roman stylus was used to scratch characters on a wax tablet, not to leave a mark on paper. There was no paper until the c.13th or 14th, I think. The Romans did use pen and ink, on papyrus and parchment, but I've never heard of them using anything resembling a pencil. That is certainly not what a stylus was, according to my understanding.

Surely wood would be a lot cheaper and better, to make styli? Or bone? Why go to the trouble and expense of using lead?

Did the Romans really use a lead stylus? I should have thought it would be far too soft and would bend.

Petrichor, yes. (cf. Latin Petra = rock) Largely due to geosmin: Electric sparks give off a pungent smell, which is at least partly due to producing ozone. However I think there may also be some nitrogen oxides (NOx) generated. In the case of internal combustion engines, I'm fairly sure the pungent smell will be from NOx, production of which is a well-known pollution issue with them. As for cookers, though I've never heard of a cooker running on diesel fuel again my bet would be NOx, unless you are using a diesel fuel with appreciable sulphur content, in which case there could be sulphur oxides (SOx). However almost all diesel today in the developed world is very low sulphur so this is unlikely.

Not entirely. Ozone, being a reactive form of oxygen, can be used as a disinfectant, for example in municipal swimming pools as an alternative to chlorine. I had not heard of it being used as a domestic water purifying agent but I'm sure this could work. However, like chlorine, it is an irritant to lungs and eyes, so not something you want to breathe! What is nonsense is the popular, or literary, notion that the pleasant smell of seaside air is due to "ozone".

Yes indeed effective companies have ways of getting feedback from the front line. The area you mention has a long way to go, it seems. Since the Covid crisis it feels as if a lot of companies have cut back on customer service - one seems to get stuck in voicejail for ages and then the wazzock at the other end has no idea what you are talking about. Not at all. It is just common sense and was accepted for decades, until we got a recent streak of politicians promising easy, populist answers to difficult problems, courtesy of the internet turbocharging stupid attitudes. Immigration in the UK is a current classic.

No. The weight of the Saturn V at launch was ~3,000 mt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V But that rocket was able to carry up to 130mt into Earth orbit. Perhaps that is what you have picked up.

I think it's important to keep in mind how western democracies actually work. With the partial exception of the Swiss, they generally do not operate via referendum. We choose representatives to govern for us, recognising that the issues of government require dedicated focus and understanding, which the populace is neither capable of nor sufficiently interested in. We thus delegate decision-making, to people we have decided to trust on the basis of what they have told us about how they will reach decisions. It's the only way that makes sense in today's complex world. The board of directors of a company is in much the same position. The employees are often not able to see the whole picture, unless they do a hell of lot of extra work, outside their regular jobs. They would need to master disciplines other than their own (engineers would need to understand marketing and finance for example), to get in a position to make an informed reading of board papers, and understand the issues that the board concerns itself with. In most companies, there will be different interest groups in different parts of the business. Someone has to make hard decisions between options that favour one group or another. While I agree that a well-run company will have channels by which to consult employees and get feedback (absence of which can lead to delusions and disaster), I really don't think the cooperative model is likely to work, other than in small and simple enterprises in which everyone can see and understand the issues for themselves. I do agree a flat management structure is to be encouraged, but here the achievable flatness will depend on the level of autonomy that can be given to employees, which will in turn depend on the level of education and understanding that can be expected of them. (It's not by coincidence that there are so many ranks in the army.) Too facile by half.

From a brief web search I think this is for electrical uses mainly, where there is no mechanical stress on the joint.

Best of luck with your neurological reference frame.

The mistake you made at the beginning was not to realise that the length of a force vector is proportional to the magnitude of the force. That is how a force vector is defined in the first place. So multiplying the length of sides of the triangle of force vectors by the size of the force makes no sense. The triangle already is the forces. Any vector can be expressed as 2 components at right angles, an "x" and a "y" component if you like, which you add by means of constructing a right angled triangle out of them. Which you can draw as (You can ignore the "sin" and "cos" bits of trigonometry if you like: they were just there on the drawings I found on the web.)

I think it is sheer nonsense to imagine some kind of "hidden collusion" between political opponents in most Western democracies. There can be a few exceptions, in specific instances, generally for tactical reasons that everyone can see. One current example is the way Labour and the Liberal Democrats avoided campaigning against one another, in the run up to last night's UK general election, in order to ensure a resounding defeat for the Conservatives. And of course in countries with proportional representation there are often governments put together as coalitions of parties (e.g. The Netherlands). Or the current pooling of efforts in France to deny a majority to the RN next week. But these examples are not hidden collusion. They are out in the open for voters to see.

No.

If past form is any guide, it will be some kind of chippy p***ing contest to show the superiority of Asia over the West. 😁

Though the heat output drops when the temperature difference between input and output becomes large. The heat pumps I have looked at quote a minimum input temperature at which the specified output can be achieved. As I recall, something in single digit -ve Celsius temperatures.

Sandbox or funny farm? A paradigm shift in which mathematics is treated as a “blind alley”, and in which we are exhorted to create vortices on top of pyramids to overcome gravity? Come off it. This is just barking mad.

This is word salad. I think you need to see a medical professional. Anyway, I'm out.