Date: 2018-08-19 05:23 pm (UTC)
mountainkiss: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mountainkiss
That psychopath interview is fascinating, thank you.

Date: 2018-08-19 05:57 pm (UTC)
cybik: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cybik
I thought it was, too.

Psychopath

Date: 2018-08-19 07:54 pm (UTC)
agoodwinsmith: (Default)
From: [personal profile] agoodwinsmith
I find it interesting that the person with the psychopath diagnosis says she has low or no emotional responses to other people's events that neurotypically provoke strong emotional responses, but she cares enough about some people to simulate empathetic responses for them.

I have assumed that caring enough about someone to fake the appropriate response is, in itself, an emotional response. Yes, one may not feel sorrow in empathy with another's sorrow, but wishing to show a socially-appropriate response to their sorrow is still more than just "thinking sorry". Isn't it?

Okay - this is a spectrum, so variation, but caring whether or not your response is sufficient is still caring, yes/no?

Re: Psychopath

Date: 2018-08-19 11:31 pm (UTC)
dewline: Text - "On the DEWLine" (Default)
From: [personal profile] dewline
Not even a student of psychology and/or psychiatry here, but I am tempted to agree with you on this point.

Stacking concrete blocks

Date: 2018-08-20 09:25 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] nojay
This is a thinly-disguised "Biggest Battery Breakthrough Since Breakfast" story which I thought you had decided to abjure from reporting.

Re: Stacking concrete blocks

Date: 2018-08-20 10:20 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
It's need for a lot of space might sit well with solar panels in deserts.

Re: Stacking concrete blocks

Date: 2018-08-20 11:05 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] nojay
The glossy picture of the "full-size" version shows a stack of twenty or more blocks, each supposedly 35 tonnes in weight. That's 700 tonnes of load on top of the one block at the bottom, maybe 4 square metres or so footprint. The designer/developer is talking about using cheap recycled cement, not steel-reinforced concrete to build these storage units. Not a good idea.

Gravity energy storage is tempting and pumped-storage using water is actually in use around the world, depending on water availability and geography (high and low reservoirs close to each other). Solid-mass storage is something else. There's a "train up a slope" system being trialled in the US but the economics are not good, requiring a lot of infrastructure, rolling stock, land etc. to store three or four MWh (wholesale grid cost about 200 bucks or so). It takes a lot of mass moved vertically a large distance to store a small amount of energy, comparatively speaking. In contrast a 1GW nuclear reactor produces enough electricity to lift a mass of 3.6 million tonnes to a height of 100 metres every hour, day in and day out.

Another giveaway is the bit in the article about "secret commercial contracts to build Real Tower Energy Storage Systems next year!" Why keep it secret if someone's plunked down millions of bucks to build such a unit? Where is it being built? etc. etc. See "carburettor that runs on water" stories and, well, pretty much any previous Biggest Battery Breakthrough Since Breakfast story you've ever read over the past dozen years.

Date: 2018-08-20 10:18 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I think that battery storage will win the cost competition against more brute force solutions like concrete blocks being stacked or subsea Compressed Air Energy Storage. I think there is more scope for new and very much cheaper ways of doing the molecular level engineering than there is for significant cost reduction in building concrete structures.

Unless those concrete tunnels are made by robots which themselves are very, very cheap.

It will be a fascinating competetion between applied physics and applied computer science.

Date: 2018-08-20 04:22 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] nojay
If I had a hundred million Euros or so to invest I'd look at productionising large lead-acid static batteries for regularising and buffering renewables generators. We don't really need denser or cuter battery tech to do that sort of a job and especially not graphene nanotube solid electrolyte lithium-polymer magictech BBBSB. Lead-acid is well-known tech but it could maybe be improved in terms of a longer working life with better charging controls and plate design. Expired batteries can easily be recycled, the acid reconstituted and the lead smelted and reformed. Even the sulphide waste sludge can be reprocessed without too much difficulty whereas the processes used to recycle li-tech batteries are a bit problematic.

Lithium-chemistry batteries are flavour-of-the-week for this sort of static power role because of Elon Musk since he's got several battery factories but they're optimised to produce batteries for mobile applications and when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, so to speak.

There are other storage battery chemistries such as sodium-sulphur which are in operation around the world, including installations larger than Musk has ever built but they don't get the fawning press that Elon's every utterance receives. Still pricey though at about a million Eu per MWh pricetag.

https://www.ngk.co.jp/nas/case_studies/rokkasho/

Date: 2018-08-21 08:14 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I think part of Musk's business plan (if he still has a business plan) is to use old batteries from electric cars in arrays as battery storage for renewables. One build cost, two sales.

Totally agree that renewables don't need small, mobile, energy dense batteries so much as they need cheap and large batteries.

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 03:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »