PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Battery bonanza

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 883
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: Battery bonanza Reply with quote

Battery bonanza: From frogs' legs to mobiles and electric cars:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39420729

Quote:
There is no shortage of researchers looking for the next breakthrough. Some are developing "flow" batteries, which work by pumping charged liquid electrolytes. Harvard researchers working on "flow" batteries have identified a new class of organic molecules, inspired by vitamin B2, that can safely store electricity. Some are experimenting with new materials to combine with lithium, including sulphur and air. Some are using nanotechnology in the wires of electrodes to make batteries last longer. But history counsels caution: game changers haven't come along often.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boisdevie



Joined: 26 Dec 2012
Posts: 213
Location: N Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 883
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boisdevie wrote:
Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?


We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
boisdevie wrote:
Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?


We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?


There is an interesting question about whether it's actually a good idea of 'slow the decline'... or putting it another way, delay the crash, extend and pretend etc... In the long run, say in 1-200 years, I expect the sooner the crash the better life will be for our descendants. If we do manage to keep the show on the road for another few decades, the crash, when it comes will be worse.

If, for example there'd been a global civilisation collapse with a significant degree of population die-off in, say, the eighties, the biosphere, climate etc would be in much better shape!
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4271
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Mark wrote:
boisdevie wrote:
Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?


We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?


There is an interesting question about whether it's actually a good idea of 'slow the decline'... or putting it another way, delay the crash, extend and pretend etc... In the long run, say in 1-200 years, I expect the sooner the crash the better life will be for our descendants. If we do manage to keep the show on the road for another few decades, the crash, when it comes will be worse.

If, for example there'd been a global civilisation collapse with a significant degree of population die-off in, say, the eighties, the biosphere, climate etc would be in much better shape!
For those that survive the crash when it does come I suspect the only important question is whether or not nuclear war played a part in the die off. All else pails beside that question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Mark wrote:
boisdevie wrote:
Ah yes. The ever so popular 'something will come along to save us' story. Wonder if they'll have an article about cold fusion next?


We're all doomed, it's true.
However, there are things we can do to slow the decline (LED Lights, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, etc. etc. etc.)
None of these were so widespread just 5-10-20 years ago....
The alternative is to just do nothing, so we all go to bed and close the curtains ?


There is an interesting question about whether it's actually a good idea of 'slow the decline'... or putting it another way, delay the crash, extend and pretend etc... In the long run, say in 1-200 years, I expect the sooner the crash the better life will be for our descendants. If we do manage to keep the show on the road for another few decades, the crash, when it comes will be worse.

If, for example there'd been a global civilisation collapse with a significant degree of population die-off in, say, the eighties, the biosphere, climate etc would be in much better shape!
For those that survive the crash when it does come I suspect the only important question is whether or not nuclear war played a part in the die off. All else pails beside that question.


In all depends on timescales. If you mean those survive 'the crash' 5 years after, then yes, nuclear war would have major implications. However, those surviving 200 or 400 years after the crash wouldn't really care one way on another. In fact for those survivors, the sooner the harder the crash the better - as it means they'll inherit a better climate and biosphere.

In fact, I'm temped to think that pretty much the worse thing for the 200 or 400 year survivors would be another 100 years of 'business as usual'.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5666
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
......pretty much the worse thing for the 200 or 400 year survivors would be another 100 years of 'business as usual'.


Yes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group