Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ?

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 12/7/24 4:10 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/12/2024 20:15, BlueManedHawk wrote:

On 12/7/24 9:29 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<snip/>
 Windmills and solar panels are useless for the same reason. - there is no storage able to meet the intermittency problem.
 <snip/>

 I've heard rumors of alternative technologies for energy storage being explored besides storage of electrical energy.  One example would be a device that stores energy not as electrical energy, but instead as potential kinetic energy, storing the energy by lifting a large mass and releasing it by dropping the large mass.  That particular one is one that i doubt will ever get off the ground, but the same basic principle of converting electrical energy to some other, more convenient-to-store form of energy is behind the ideas i've seen floated around.

  That is essentially the physics behind pumped (hydroelectric) storage, which achieves about 75% turn round efficiency. If you consider the size of the the lakes involved and the amount of energy that may be stored...you sigh and realise its better to build a nuclear power station that doesn't need the storage in the first place.
 It works, but without suitable geography the build cost is phenomenal.
 A much more reasonable solution  is the molten salt cooled nuclear reactor where molten salt can be stored ready for peak power delivery above the capability of the reactor in its steady state.
 The reality is that if anything really worked we would have seen it implemented already. 'Sustainable' energy  is a chimaera that always needs 'more publicly funded research' and never really delivers.
 We will have to put up with its constant bleating and claims to be the 'energy of the future' until enough people get so fucking fed up with it they demand something that actually works.  Like nuclear power...

>
 In the 1st world, suitable GEOGRAPHY is a BIGGIE. Land
 is EXPENSIVE ... an then the ultra-greenies will freak
 about tiny bugs and plants and fish.
>
 This limits hydro-anything. Basically if it's not already
 there, you ain't gonna be allowed to do it.
>
 Nuke, in some ways, IS easier. Hey, Iran is making LOTS
 of uranium these days ...  :-)
>
 I'm a fan of "pebble bed" - but 'super hot' seems to
 be more popular real-world. A mistake IMHO.
>
 Modern flywheels - super-sized - COULD store rather a
 lot of energy. However you'd need to bury them a little
 Just In Case.
>
 Lithium packs ... just WAIT for the huge fire ...
>
 HAVE looked into what could be called "low-headwater
 hydro" ... ie tapping SMALL dams or even river flows.
 With modern design software efficient turbines MIGHT
 be made. Envision 'farms' of raft-looking generator
 platforms in the Mississippi. Low-RPM blades wouldn't
 even kill fish.
>
 Yea yea, I know the laws of thermodynamics - but if
 you can dip into 'low delta' CHEAPLY enough ....
>
 There just doesn't seem to be any 'perfect' solution
 at present. Even 99.9% efficient PV cells would not
 solve all the issues. For now, some sensible MIX of
 technologies is the best course. Alas POLITICS tends
 to squeeze the 'sensible' out of everything.

Sounds like you have the perfect business idea right there! Given all the eco-fascism in the world, go on a fund raising tour to europe and they will literally throw money at you!
And the best thing of all... it doesn't even have to work! ;)