There are many things wrong with our present political and economic system. We must fix the financial system but we must also, for the first time in a generation, have a coherent and forward looking scientific and industrial research and development strategy. One that is not hangstrung by the petty fogging small mindedness of beaurocratic box-ticking and target-snooping. Nor one set up to be robbed blind by the greed and short term, dead-endism of free-market contractors.
There was a time we did look forward and we did great things. Then finance got involved and long term vision was sacrificed to quarterly return. And finally debt fuelled growth replaced everything and valued nothing, before collapsing in on its own meaninglessness.
We are not going to build a recovery, let alone a whole future, based upon paying off yesterdays debts. Such an idea is a failure of the imagination. In our minds we have become shackled to debt. The Politics of debt has rotted whatever moral compass we once had. It has robbed us of vision and of hope. We have become blind men shoving and jostling each other as we stumble into a future we can no longer see.
The challenges which face us are breathtaking. And our parents have frittered away much of the time we once had. But, we have more technical mastery at our disposal than ever before in human history. We have a greater, deeper wider base of knowledge about what has worked and what has led to failure than ever before. What impedes us is the inheritance of yesterday’s inequities and moral failures. Rid ourselves of those and we will be free.
So –
Energy is where I want to start. Energy is where environment, finance and politics meet. There is no, more critical confrontation between the radical and the retrograde. The finance of energy is where we will perish or triumph.
40 years ago Fusion was going to be clean, limitless and available to all nations. It would transform the gloabl balance of power, transform economies and reduce polution. It still will. It is also still , as it was then, 30 years away.
So what happened and why?
I recently had a long conversation with one of this county’s leading Fusion researchers, Dr David Ward, of Culham’s JET fusion reasearch facility.
The short answer? Finance.
The longer answer is more intersting
The oil crisis of the seventies made politicians listen to Fusion phsysicists. They funded it. The UK built JET. It was the leading Fusion research facility in the world. Then the price of oil went down, North Sea oil was discovered and suddenly the funding for fusion withered. The next-step machine was never built. Political minds are feeble at best. Long term, they are worse than useless.
The budget of Fusion research has fallen by 66% in the last 20 years. As Dr Ward said,” Fusion wasn’t 30 years away it was 30 billion Euro’s away.” We simply haven’t bothered to fund it. We spent 800 million building the Dome. This year we spent 22 million funding Fusion. A tent or the future and security of the nation? Hmm let me see now.
And Dr Ward is very clear – “Fusion isn’t a pipe dream. Fusion power is generated every day around the world.” Nor is Fusion going to be an exotic add-on. Without Fusion we WILL go back to the stone age. Sure, cutting energy use is essential and possible. Just change the building regs and build houses that aren’t thin-walled speculator boxes. Renewables, if we pull our finger out on wave power, will generate maybe 20%. The rest will still be oil or Fission.
We will not run out of oil. It will just become very expensive. Along the way, soon, will will have to decide if we want to use oil and gas for plastics, chemicals and materials or continue to burn it. If we burn it, carpentry is set for a come back.
Fusion is one of a short list of things WE MUST DO. As the demand for hydrocarbons outstrips supply, and the climatic effects of fossil fuel burning become self-amplifying, we must replace the bulk of our power generating capacity. Will it be Fusion or Fission? One is polluting and creates everything you need for a world full of atomic weapons. The other is clean, pollution of zero but sadly has no military value. Could that be why the budget for fission has been 20 times that of fusion?
We will fail as a civilization if we have not cracked Fusion. It really is as simple as that. It has been there for the taking for a generation, And yet our political class is so catastrophically unable to think ahead it remains out of reach.
So what do we need to do?
Dr Ward is suprisingly candid. We need to build the next level machine. We are in the process. That machine, ITER in France, will be a giga watt to Jet’s 20 mega watts. ITER will be a the first industrial demonstration facility.
ITER will push our magnetic containment ability to its limit. It will allow us to make a machine where we can tackle the next big hurdle. Not generating the energy. We can do that. But dealing with it after. To sustain the reaction you need to insulate it. It turns out giga watt size is about the threshold between machines too small to insulate properly and machines large enough to make it feasible.
We will need to gear up the indsutrial production of super conducting magnets. In the UK we specialize in the high end magnets. Production is already more in China, Japan and Korea. We cannot wait for the magnets to get cheaper. We need a policy and funding to push their development forward.
ITER will cost €10-12 billion. That is half what we need to spend to make Fusion a global reality. We need to spend about 24 billion euros. If we spend it a billion a year we will be there in twenty- odd . This isn’t like the 70’s war on cancer. Then we did not know the lineaments of the problem. Today we do. We know what we have to solve and in some cases how.
24 Billion euros. No government will afford that. BUT WHY NOT? We HAVE given 40 times that amount in just two years to our banks. And for what? Are they going to maintain civilization?
Of course the banks and their captured politicians will be quick to caution you that such research cannot be done by governments. They always get it wrong and waste the money, they will tell you. Leave it to the free market. This is part of the free market propaganda we must rid ourselves of. The Manhattan Project. The breaking of the Enigma code. The creation of Nuclear Fusion reactors, the invention of the jet engine, the Apollo and Soyuz space programmes and THE INTERNET. The free market invented, created and accomplished NONE of these. They made more of them AFTER they were done and invented. Anyone want to argue?
If we had a political class who cared, who were not merely the willing bag men of the financial class we would put Fusion and a short list of other scientific and industrial priorities on a war footing. We would do what we did with Manhattan and Engima. We would say to dedicated men and women who do NOT, unlike bankers, do it only for the size of their bonus, “What do you need, and when?” We would clear away the petty fogging beaurocrats and self-serving private contractors. We would recruit the best and give them a dream to inspire them.
It was done then. We found the minds. They are waiting for us to find them again. Such a programme of research would attract the finest students to this country and from within this country. Give them dreams and the means to realise them.
It would take a fraction, a tiny fraction of what we spend and waste on banks and weapons we will never fire. Think about it. It would cost less per year than the city spends on its own bonuses. Am I alone in thinking the status quo DOES NOT deserve to live?
Good article but there is not an earthly of anything happening. I read that Computer Science grads have the highest unemployment rate – 17%! Engineering graduates come out a bit better at 14%. Vets and medical folk are more or less 100% employed. No argument with that of course. I do know about these specialisms having both an Engineering background and a CS degree. These are not easy options for sure but nobody wants them.
The perspective of funds is an eye opener, I did not appreciate the scale of things.
I believe that when people wake up to the robbery that has been done (and we all know who the culprits are) there will be a lot of unrest. Others have suggested we go the way of life in South Africa with the rich living in gated communities and the rest (that is You and I) using scavenging and crime to exist from day to day.
Then latter won't happen. Not because some might not think it a good idea. But because I for one would not allow it. They might live in gated communities but I would simply not stick to my alloted role.
Hi Golem,
I agree very much with your point tha 30 billion seems like peanuts compared to the bank bailouts but you have to realize that the bonuses are less in scientific circles.
When I think of a time in the past that I would loved to have lived thought, I would have to pick America in the 1960's and the Apollo program. This is a good example of what can be done when we really want to. OK, it took up to 10% of the total US budget, but look what was achieved in a relatively short time.
There are other possible approaches to fusion which might be just as promising. I would be interested to know what your contact thinks of Focus Fusion. They certainly don't seem like charlatans, but sometimes it is difficult to tell. The interesting thing about this, is that a reactor could be quite small and relatively cheap. It also seems to be very green. The main downsides seem to be that the big companies that prey on large government contracts would not profit so much.
There is an article called "The stagecoach and the spaceship" on the site that contrasts tokamak fusion with focus fusion. I found this an interesting read.
But this is so unnecessary… The energy crisis could be solved today, with 100 year old technology and changing lifestyles. The biggest thing we could do is adopt such reforms to the renting laws, as to make renting an appartment in the inner city as plausible as suburban living. Thus copying the continent. When everyone lives within walking distance of their place of work, the energycrisis will be over. Return the ashphalt roads to their original purpose -for bicycles, and dig up the tram tracks. People live quite happily this way in amsterdam – no one feels deprived.
You rightly point out changing the bulding regs. In germany they use the passive-hause standard; where the insulation is of such quality that no heating is required. Also, banning StandBy features on eletronics saves 10% of the national eletricity a year, and if 12v DC where regulated for all eletronic devices the multitude of transformers that live inside most eletronic devices would be dispelled – and they are the true power users – expect eletricticy demand to half. Throw in the eighty year old technology of brown's gass of landfill and sewage, and the seventy year old technology of cogeneration. Most of the equipment for these is still lying arround british cities, mothballed.
It doesn't require new technology, it requires digging up the stuff that was trashed sixty years ago. It isn't a energy crisis it's a lifestyle crisis. Like the Greenland vikings who starved to death because copying the eskimo and eating fish was beneath their culture. Instead they prefered to cope with crop failures by building a mighty cathedral – which they did not endure to finish. Will this fusion power plant be a mighty cathedral?
Rob,
I'm not familiart with FOcus Fusion. I had a quick look and it looks most interesting. I will ask Dr Ward what he thinks about it.
I suspect there must be several approaches that could be fruitful.
I did ask him about the Ignition facility and he explained why thar technology wasa greawt for bombs but uselsess for power generation. Or at least useless up to now.
Thanks for the link.
Cyan,
Why the need to decry one part of a better future in favour of another part?
I agree that so many of our problems could be solved with low tech solutions and changes to life-styles. But you are wrong to dismiss the contribution of technologies such as Fusion. There is nothing morally superior about low terch over high tech. What matters is appropriate tech.
All the solutions you mention I would find myself supporting. But I think you weaken your case by over selling.
First there are 7 billion people to think about not just the happy residents of Amsterdam. China does have high rise high denstity living. Their energy demand is going up.
We will need massive energy generation to deal with the legitimate demands for power from several billion people of the third world.
I think Fusion will be essential to give them power without destroying the gloabl environment. How would you like to gnerate the power tpo build millions of houses and the urban infrastrcuture to go with them? I suggest fusion as soon as possible. You're suggestion?
Let's say we manage to build zero carbon housing. Absolutely no reason why we shouldn't . And lower energy demand. We will still have energy demands. Why do you want to continue to generate the power we will still need from fossil fuels and fussion? Renewables on their own would still not be enough.
The building programme for your rental, inner city vision would require a collosal concrete production and building programme. How do you want to generaete the energy for all that concrete and building?? I say do it cleanly.
I am very much in favour of refitting existing empty space with in cities to make living space. But, I do not think your vision of continental high density living is always quite the cure all solution. I have been in many continental cities and the high density living solution is not a cure all. Most of the high density areas are ghettos. I have been in several and found little to inspire and much to deplore there.
Continued below
All I really want to say is this. It is a classic failing of progrssive thinkers to fall into the trap of arguing over which solutions and suggestions are the pureest by some measure or other. And then to spend energy decrying those judeged unpure and unworthy. It is the Monty Python 'People's liberation front of Judea' nonsense.
I AGREE with the low tech and life-style solutions. I would really like to hear more about some you mentioned. I suspect I know less about them than you.
But saying things like' "..when eveyone lives in walking distance of their place of work…" does you no credit. It is silly, poorly thought out, 6th form nonesense. Two adults, both work – How are both going to have the skills to conveniently put BOTH of them in walking distance of where those skills are required? It won't happen. And certainly not on the scale of whole populations. One wil need to travel. Perhaps some distance.
To make a better future we will need a complex mixture of solutions which compliment and support each other.
It is quite possible for you to advicate good solutions as you did. It is un-neccessary to decry without really thinkig hard about solutions you are less familiar wtih. What is NOT welcome here at all is any kind of desire for the ideologically pure for purity's sake.
'Greeener than thou' is what has helped to keep Green idea safely marginalized. I don't like those who think technology is always the answer and advocate mega engineering as the solution to everything. But it is equally foolish to allow the techno apostles to push you into an equally rigid techno rejectionist mind set.
Technology is good. You are most probably only alive today because of science and technology. I would have died of appendicitits aged 7 without modern science and medicine.
I want a future than is equitable and allows people a dignified chance in life. Low carbon housing, and allotments will be part of it. They do not need to be all of it.
I appreciate your thoughtfulnes and that you are willing to take a stand. The world need people like you.
But please don't fall into the trap of requiring a pure vision of a pure future. The future will be messy and contradictory. If it isn't it will be hellish and authoritarian.
Very sorry all – No idea how to remove a reply. Anyone know?
Imagine how society would change if energy was practically limitless. Look at the technologies in science-fiction films that we have not managed to yet invent, such as force fields, anti-gravity machines, long-distance space travel, etc. All require vast amounts of energy that are not available from the National Grid. Even the basic research for these technologies requires 'more power Igor'.
Take away energy concerns and science can enter new fields of study previously prohibited by the need to have a power station in your basement. Fusion is the only way to generate enough energy – the entire Universe is powered by fusion/gravity.
Needless to say, limitless energy is not just useful for scientists. With boundless energy we could stop using natural gas and convert all central heating systems and cookers to electricity. Elderly people would no longer worry about energy bills and could afford to heat their homes properly during the winter.
[On a technical note (for Cyan) electricity needs to be distributed at a high voltage because this is most efficient way of providing the high energy demands of a typical house. With 12Vdc your cables would be impractically thick to provide enough current, for example, an electric shower would require over 500 amps at 12Vdc, but about 30 amps at 240Vac.]
Not to exclude our military chaps, the x-ray lasers needed to knock missiles out of the air require at least 100kW each. Imagine what they could do with limitless energy, if only they'd divert some of their funding.
I'm working today on diagnostic equipment for a project in Merseyside that involves a new type of electron/muon particle accelerator. Having had a tour of the facilities, I was not only impressed by the pure science these guys are involved in but also their determination to get this technology in to products that hospitals can use for the treatment of tumours. It's all in the project plan!
I was expecting to see a group of eccentric boffins, a little detached from the real world and struggling to engage in normal conversation. Pah! What I did see was a close-knit group of physicists, mathematicians, engineers and IT specialists; all working to a clear end-point, and eager to show off their achievements to the public. It made you proud to be British!
There is a lot of good science done in this country, but sadly the general public is not interested. TV channels show what most people want to watch and, not surprisingly, psychic fraudsters get bigger audiences than the science programs do.
Public perception of science is changing, for the better. I believe we have the Internet to thank for that. There are now so many ways of looking for explanations and checking facts and figures. This means that urban myths and conspiracy theories no longer hold so many people in their grip and, perhaps one day, even astrology will become part of our embarrassed past.
Hi Golem,
I can delete my comments using the small trash can symbol to the right of the date at the bottom of the comment.
Fantastic article (and responses) here Golem, I think you are right. I also think humanity works best with goals and discipline, not for the sake of them, but purposefully. We are messing up in the current aspirational, free for all, aimless framework we have.
Clamouring for trinkets, sold the lie by the rich that we too are rich if you buy the new [insert shit here].
I struggle to write this down at times, and I have no desire for puritanism, just a refocusing of priorities and some honest self assessment.
I think the biggest obstacle to this however, and to any progress, was raised by RichGB's last couple of paragraphs, and (clumsily) here – the stupification of the masses. Without addressing this, change is difficult.
We've got shiny shackles, we are told we want. We wear them gladly.
The technolgies available in our digital age have a very large part in addressing this. And people exploiting them, like your good self. I think it needs accelerating however.
@cyan
Before praising the 'continent' too much, take a look at the per capita carbon emission. Many european countries, even the scandinavian ones are above Britain. I live in France and work often in Germany. While the germans seem to be very green thinking (and are in general), they still have higher per capita carbon emissions than the UK. France is much lower, due to forward thinking investment in Hydro and Nuclear (fission).
Most french and germans that I know do not walk to work. The germans tend to drive great big cars and live quite far from work. In fact you can claim your mileage against your income tax – this is done to support the german car industry. The germans often talk about introducing lower speeds on their autobahns, but this is most unpopular with the voters.
There are two main reasons people live far from their work – because they cannot afford to live closer, or they like to live in the countryside. So getting more people to live in the cities comes down to making the price of housing go down and making the cities more attractive places to live.
I work from home and try to take the train when I need to travel for work. This is not always possible, but at least I try.
Golem is right that we need to invest more in alternative energy sources. Before the financial crisis erupted, I read that the cost estimate for really starting to tackle CO2 emissions worldwide was something like 1 trillion dollars. That seems like a bargain compared to what we gave the banks. Unfortunately there ain't much money left now.
Some of the best studies I have read on tackling C02 emissions make it clear that we need to tackle it on all fronts simultaneously. I read a great article in the Nat Geo Mag a few years ago about this. Can't find a reference at the moment. It's not simple – but it's possible.
Cyan, as Rob mentioned the problem with low voltage distribution is the resistance of the wires. As this is proportional to length (distance from the generator to you house)and the lost power is equal to current squared times resistance it is a no brainer. That is why there are schemes to bring solar generated power to Europe using one million volt transmission lines (DC as well not sure why that is best perhaps Rob can say?).
See a link here:
http://www.solarfeeds.com/recharge-news/7540-german-group-to-take-lead-on-sahara-solar-power-farming
Good thread and comments.
I think cyan is talking about having additional dedicated low voltage DC wiring within a household, rather than distribution from the power station to the house. Many data centers do use DC power to reduce the total power usage, because it saves having a separate transformer in each computer.
Nice idea, but probably impractical. I would rather pay a little more each year for electricity, rather than several thousand quid up front to put in a dedicated DC network. There are obvious risks in having two separate wiring networks in the house too. This will work for data centers and maybe offices, but homes – I think not for a while. It's a bit like the QWERTY keyboard problem – it was designed to slow down typing to stop the typewriter 'keys' sticking together. People have tried to get us to change to something better – but there is too much resistance.
Thanks Rob for that insight about DC and also for the inside information about actually living and working in Germany/France. I was surprised about the way the table you referenced showed the Germans as worse for CO2 usage having spent many happy holidays there I imagined that they were more efficient!
I should have added an apology to Golem for hijacking this thread.
BTW, the pun at the end of my last post was unintentional.
Pity we can't all meet down the pub – this would be a nice discussion – especially over a cool, preferably german, beer.
Also notice that the germans have made a big effort to reduce their CO2 emissions – more so than the british or french. They will undertake us soon – if you can say that. But they do love their fast cars – somewhat of a teutonic paradox.
Hey IanG,
DO NOT apologise. I'm reading your thread and feeling thrilled. What I want MOST for this place is for it to be a place where people meet and exchange ideas and thoughts.
If it is only ever about what I have to say then it fails in my mind.
SO PLEASE don't apologise and PLEASE keep talking to each other.
I was just thinking to ask – how can I improve this place?
Rich GB,
"On a technical note (for Cyan) electricity needs to be distributed at a high voltage because this is most efficient way of providing the high energy demands of a typical house. With 12Vdc your cables would be impractically thick to provide enough current, for example, an electric shower would require over 500 amps at 12Vdc, but about 30 amps at 240Vac."
A brave attempt at eletronics but misguided, high voltage is not required for a typical house, nor is AC efficent, AC is least efficent due to it's grounding. It is prefered only for its ablity to be efficently steped up and down to be transmited over long distances 3 – 300 miles.
As for the claim that the cables are impractically thick, this is also incorrect, if you study basic eletrical engineering you will find that over comming resitstance depends on both the thickness of the wire and the length. For distances less than a mile the issue of wire thickness does not arrise.
But, we are discussing internal eletronics: let me give an example my computer steps up and down three times between 12vDC, 8vDC and 24vDC, only one of these is required, using the others is a waste of energy caused only by a lack of standard.
"It is a classic failing of progrssive thinkers to fall into the trap of arguing over which solutions and suggestions are the pureest by some measure or other."
I am sorry but my experince, it is a classic failure of progressive thinkers to fall into the trap of buliding eternal motion machines. And that utopia is just arround the corner, at some unspecified point in the future, and off the back of the next big grand idea. Rather than the pragmatic application of what we already know works and have tried. Meanwhile the stack of broken eggs from tomorrows omlette grows ever larger. We dream of a future of limmitless energy: it is not going to happen. Not least because it defies the laws of the conservation of energy. Dreams of what new technologies 'might' do in thirty years, are a distraction from the raw practical problems of peoples lives now. I would rather we do what we know works first. Hope more often prevents progress than aids it. Appologies if the Cathedral remark was too close to the bone, i got carried away with the litterary moment.
But i have wore myself out arguing against the loopy hydrogen-powered-economy that did the rounds two years ago and i'm not getting dragged back ito another round of debating the fourty year old fusion power, that has not as of yet produced a single watt of power. I'm not supprised they are still asking for more time and money, but they are a classic example of a failed resarch programe; and i understand why the politicans are tired listening to them; i am sick listening to them. Fusion was always a creature of the military/industrial complex anyway.
I realise i am expressing my self in a very forcefull and impolite way, i shall certainly withdraw myself, and i realise than any objection i offer will be met with claim that i am being unnecessarily conservative and not open minded, but i still maintain you have more chance of being impailled on your front-door by a passing unicorn than ever seeing a single bulb in your house lit from fusion power.
The future is obviously going to be large solar farms in space, beaming the power back to earth by microwave. There are just a few technical issues to solve, but once we have the space elevator in place it should be easier. Mind you, with the space elevator, we could just collect all the CO2 and pipe it into space!
Hello cyan, (another two part reply – length limits apparently)
You don't need to withdraw. Not on my account anyway. The others can speak for themselves.
By all means be forceful. Impolite isn't necessary.
Perhaps someone "…dreams future of limitless energy.." But it's not me. Neither am I trying to imagine some perpetual motion machine. Nor am I unaware of the laws of the conservation of energy.
Nor have I anywhere in this discussion nor anywhere else for that matter, said we shouldn't do the practical, low tech, known and simple things that, as you say, would go a long way to solving many of today's problems.
I am not trying to shout you down. But you do seem to be trying to shout others down. Is it necessary? This isn't Wired Magazine. This isn't a 'technonology will solve all our problems' blog. No one here, I don't think, believes in utopia's or technological or otherwise. References to perpetual motion machines are silly and so are misplaced claims that someone is dreaming of limitless energy. "We dream…"? Who's we? Someone may be. It's not me.
I'm not saying you are "too conservative" nor "not open minded". I am saying you seem slightly authoritarian.
The central premise of your reply, I think, correct me if I have mis-read you, is that, –
"Dreams of what new technologies 'might' do in thirty years, are a distraction from the raw practical problems of peoples lives now. I would rather we do what we know works first. Hope more often prevents progress than aids it."
Why is it either/or for you? Why can't we do what we know now, I am in favour of all you mentioned, and pursue new ideas? What is the problem?
Every technology was thirty years ago once. Penicillin was. So was the printing press and so was the transistor. But your charge is that they were a dsitraction from the "raw practical of people's lives now." Were they really? If they weren't then, how are you so sure today's technologicl and scientific drams might not have some benefits?
The practical and immediate problem in my grandmother's life, which brought her to a few breaths of death while being operated on, on her kitchen table in a mining village before WWII was that, at the time, the NHS was thirty years away. But someone had a dream. A damn good one.
The problem you raise is, to condense the above quote is that, "Dreams…are a distraction…."
No they aren't. Not even scientific ones. Dreams are what make people believe they can be better, can do better, can create a better world than those before them were sure was practical. Hope does not prevetn anything. It is AN essential ingredient.
My best friend was a practical man who spent his working life putting in sewers and clean water for those who hadn't any. He solved practical problems with known technology. But what drove him on was the dream, the hope, that what he was doing was building a better world. At his death he felt he had been cheated. He had worked for a better world and the bankers of this world had perpetuated all the inequalities and poverty of the old world. The used the known and the true and the tried and trampled on my firend's dreams. It helped to kill him.
If your future has no room in it for dreams and those who dream them, it will be a dreary and chilling place.
Perhaps what you really mean is those siren voices who say, 'No need to do anything today. Tomorrow we will discover the magic bullet. Have faith. All will turn out all right." Is that what you hate? So do I.
But I have never advocated doing nothing. I clearly said I suport the practical, known solutions. The solutions based on social change and usingless or using what we have more wisely.
But in what testament does it say such things preclude research for the new?
My point form the start has been to say we should not waste our resources on saving the wealthy owners of banks from their greed and folly, while starving research into things that might help us all.
Is that such a bad thing to argue for?
If you hate fusion and are convinced it is folly, fine. Why blow a fuse? This isn't a fusion web site. Soon I shall write about the need to support Stem Cell research. Maybe you'll hate that too. Or maybe you won't.
I could also write about the simple solution of requiring building regs to be brought up to zero carbon emmission standards and using a government subsidy to help keep the prices affordable for the buyer.
Stay and participate if you can. If you can't. Then good luck to you.
SOLAR POWER LINK from upthread
Very interesting debate and possibly the first on the energy issue.
Just thought I'd recommend Richard Heinberg's work which certainly gave me a few things to worry about when I read The Party's Over a few years ago.
If we are at or near the peak of oil production and we need to continue producing more and more energy then something is going to give quite soon. His book basically focuses on the fact that we're far too late with developing other technologies.
I agree with other comments supporting reduction of consumption now. Unfortunately, unless humans are forced, they will consume until there's nothing left.
Hello Bravebart,
Changing life-styles and reducing energy consumption are, I agree, the measures we can and should take immediately. They could make such a huge difference.
The discussion which so annoyed Cyan, was not meant to replace ideas of consumption reduction at all. Norr to advocate a high-tech-will-save-us outlook.
It was meant to bring in to our discussions other parts of a broad consideration of how we could run a better society. I hope any society we build will have space in it for science and forward thinking.
ANYWAY, I have a question.
I was really interested in what Cyan said about different an unecessary transformers n consumer goods. Could anyone here say more? Maybe Cyan if he's still talking to us?
Is there really no intrinsic need for the different voltages? If it really is simply laziness that different components use different voltages, then it seems to me another example of the failure of the market to do anything helpful. But before I feed this morcel to my prejudices I wanted to know a bit more.
I am NOT knowledgeable about electronics.
OK, I can give a bit of background having designed power supplies in the past. Things may have changed a bit since then so be aware of that please. I am ready to be corrected.
1. Transformers can only be used with AC supplies and the mains in the UK has a frequency of 50Hz. This is not ideal for the materials used in transformers which tend to be iron – hence the weight.
2. Transformers are used to step up or down the voltage by virture of the ratio between primary and secondary windings. You still end up with AC which in general is no use for electronic circuits which need DC to operate.
3. The next stage is converting AC to DC. This is where the inefficiences arrise. For anything above a few watts you need to go to a switched mode PSU.
4. Switched mode PSUs as I recall turn the mains straight into DC, then a high frequency (several thousand Hz) switcher turns it into AC. This is then put through a much more efficient transformer made from ferrite metial which is smaller and lighter and more efficient. The output is at the desired voltage and with some fairly complex feedback loops you end up with a a steady DC and only a few percent efficiency loss.
5. Different voltages? The circuit designers will optimise their designs and I guess they all make different trade-offs. So we end up with different voltages. Digital logic traditionally used 5 volts but I think 3.3 volts is more common now? Analogue circuits have components optimised fr distortion say in an audio amplifier.
This is all old knowledge and I accept may well have changed by now.
You did ask….:/
Wow! There's a lot of passion in this thread.
Thanks IanG for a very clear summary of voltage conversion.
My company designs electronic products, including switch-mode power supplies, so we are one of those parties guilty of using so many different voltages.
When we design an electronic product the voltages we select depend on a number of factors:
1) minimising the number of power circuits.
2) reducing heat.
3) compatibility with peripheral equipment.
4) compatibility with existing battery chemistry (if a battery powered product).
Most digital logic is now 3.3V; however, many complex processors and logic devices use 1.8V at their core to keep heat to a minimum amongst very densely packed transistors. A 5V rail may still be used for analogue circuits (and USB), but is becoming rarer. A 12V or 24V rail is typically used for high power components such as stepper motors, valves and display backlights.
To convert from mains to say 1.8V in a single step is very difficult to achieve with high efficiency; therefore it is better to step the mains down to say 12Vdc using a fast switch-mode (SMPS) regulator, then use further SMPS or linear regulators to obtain the lower voltages.
Regarding Cyan's comments, he is correct in stating that the mains voltage has been selected because it is distributed over long distances. Localised distribution transformers could be used to supply most electronic products at a lower voltage. There could be a second power line to houses for equipment that can work on the lower voltage; however, I think appliances such as cookers and showers are best served with a high voltage.
One thing I did not make clear in my previous post was the reason for using low voltages. Why not just power everything from 12Vdc?
Modern circuit boards contain very small, densely packed components. Some integrated circuits (microchips) contain millions of transistors, switching millions of times a second. If you attempted to power such a densely packed circuit with 12Vdc it would overheat and destroy itself. For this reason, the most complex integrated circuits (some with more than 1000 pins) are powered from just 1.2V.
Another reason for using lower voltages is electromagnetic emissions. When circuits are switching at MHz or even GHz frequencies it is best to do this at a low voltage; otherwise your electronic circuit becomes a radio transmitter that could potentially interfere with other equipment.
Stepping-up and stepping-down voltages-
sounds a lot like the combustion engine; a great idea which lost its way over 100 years with clumsy add-ons and no momentum to rub it out and start again using new knowledge & insights.
I suspect that (re. the fusion issue) the generations of domesticated and emasculated academics wont ever be able to face the truth objectively, and pile into the one, best way of achieving success with fusion. They would far rather stick in their own little pure-theory cul-de-sacs.
Perhaps there is a role for hard-bitten capitalists who take no prisoners and can bang heads together.
Unfortunately there is no-one in the UK financial elite who has the imagination or bottle to do it.
20 years of hurt coming up.