Article on the BBC about battery storage

[Jeremy Harris]

9 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

No it is called scientific consensus based on the application of a process known as the scientific method. Data is just a contributory element of that process.

 

The challenge you now face is transposing scientific consensus into social consensus. That is a far greater challenge because the human brain is the most complex artifact in the known universe and that complexity increases by a vast factor when those brains interact in large social groups. Comprehending all this is much more difficult than understanding the physics of a black hole.

 

Reading the two books mentioned earlier in this thread would help you on an intellectual journey which in turn would help you promote the science of global warming but for some reason you are reluctant to do this.

 

 

Data is rarely, if ever, "consensus".  I spent most of my career measuring things, and removing all and every source of measurement error.  We only published data when i was just that, irrevocable evidence measured and cross-checked against other sources, with due account taken of any and all sources of measurement error, to the point where there was no significant chance of it being incorrect.

 

I've never, ever, published any data professionally that hasn't been peer reviewed and cross checked multiple times.  I've taken part in many peer review processes, where the starting point is always the same - you view the results and conclusions presented with deep scepticism until you have collated enough high quality evidence from independent sources, or your own experiments, to demonstrate whether or not the data in the paper being reviewed is valid.  Only then does the paper get published, and often only after a fairly lengthy debate amongst the peer reviewers as to whether the conclusions drawn from the data are valid or not.

 

There's nothing quite as tough as a review by a bunch of scientists, who are, by their very nature, sceptical of claims and cynical of conclusions, until such time as they've seen the hard evidence with their own eyes.  As a collective group, good scientists are a pretty difficult bunch, as it's rare for them to naturally agree about anything that hasn't been proved to each and every one of them individually.  It's one reason that scientists are rarely definitive, but almost always couch any statement with a certain amount of caution, or with caveats.  The latter are often ignored by the media, much to our general annoyance, as ignoring important bounds and caveats then gives the general public a completely false view.

[jack]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

It's one reason that scientists are rarely definitive, but almost always couch any statement with a certain amount of caution, or with caveats.  The latter are often ignored by the media, much to our general annoyance, as ignoring important bounds and caveats then gives the general public a completely false view.

 

The caveats are often used by the ignorant as evidence that scientists don't know "for sure". 

 

And then you have the flipside, where papers report about some new health threat caused by (making something up here) bacon increasing stomach cancer, until you look at the details and realise it's a 5% increased risk on an already unusual cancer. 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, jack said:

a 5% increased risk on an already unusual cancer. 

And also in a very small fraction of people tested/surveyed.

This weeks comic had an article about this very point (not bacon, sampling methods).

 

[jack]

23 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

This weeks comic had an article about this very point (not bacon, sampling methods).

 

Not bacon sampling methods?

[epsilonGreedy]

13 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Why is it that non-scientists choose to use false principles and grossly inaccurate generalisations to deride, even deliberately insult

 

Quote

Finally. I have no idea why the term "social science" is misused, to pretend that social studies are really a science.  In my view it is not a science and never has been, at best it's a bunch of untested ideas that someone with more ego than common sense has gathered together and tried to falsely claim as demonstrable fact.

 

Hmmm, at this point you unwittingly tied your debating shoe laces together and tripped over your own question.

 

I think we would agree one of the most dangerous phrases used today "our research shows...", typically originates from social science.

 

Social Science is a science, it is however a new and immature science attempting to explain a very complex subject matter namely us. As a consequence social scientists are more often wrong than right, when their science leads to social policy chance in a country the outcome is often unintended and damaging because they have perturbed a poorly understood highly complex mechanism.

 

Think of it this way, the original hardcore sciences of physics and chemistry explain the Universe as it existed when earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Biology, botany and zoology explain the more diverse world created by DNA and reproduction. Anthropology and history specialize in the most intelligent ape created by DNA and reproduction or more specifically what those apes have done with their run-away cognitive ability. Social science and political science try unsuccessfully to explain the trouble those apes got into when they started living in 1+ million communities.

Edited June 29, 2018 by epsilonGreedy

[Tennentslager]

Hope you guys are enjoying this.

Personally I'm voting YES

PS battery storage is kinda getting lost, find a room.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Tennentslager

[Guest Alphonsox]

13 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Think of it this way, the original hardcore sciences of physics and chemistry explain the Universe as it existed when earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. Biology, botany and zoology explain the more diverse world created by DNA and reproduction. Anthropology and history specialize in the most intelligent ape created by DNA and reproduction or more specifically what those apes have done with their run-away cognitive ability. Social science and political science try unsuccessfully to explain the trouble those apes go into when they started living in 1+ million communities.

 

Grade-1 bottom gravy - Unfortunately the internet has given life to this sort of bollox despite being its chief repudiation. You may have heard of the big bang (~14Billion years ago) and the work of physics to explain the bits before and after it. There's a big empty tube that's been working on the question recently, there was even something on the news about it recently you may have spotted.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

48 minutes ago, Tennentslager said:

Hope you guys are enjoying this.

Personally I'm voting YES

PS battery storage is kinda getting lost, find a room.

 

No, I'm not, and as a scientist with over 40 years experience I'm ducking out - sometimes there is little merit in continuing a debate that is going around in circles and will never reach a meaningful conclusion.

[Nickfromwales]

Ok, excellent debate folks, but the thread has now been sufficiently derailed for me to go dizzy, so I don my sheriffs badge. 

Battery storage from now on please, anything else goes bye-bye.

Mods

[vivienz]

I'm off to do some bacon testing for me breakfast whilst contemplating the joys of battery storage for my new build.

[Brickie]

Have to say-I think Parlour’s book would shade it on tales of dressing  room hi jinks :))

[MikeSharp01]

On 26/06/2018 at 12:32, SteamyTea said:

I really think that there needs to be proper education

Curiously this is probably the answer to ALL our problems. 

[Onoff]

I dip into some American, DIY solar forums and if anything they tend to use banks of RV batteries. Of course a good few are talking about Tesla.

 

They're also big into building giant, insulated tank, thermal stores heated via solar thermal. I guess many have the space. Their homebrew panels never seem that efficient a design but they are again massive! 

[MikeSharp01]

How about this system as a way forward:

 

https://8rivers.com/portfolio/allam-cycle/

 

Uses the Allam cycle to burn fossil and other fuels and produces only liquid water and pure carbon dioxide, bubbles pretty bubbles.

Edited July 2, 2018 by MikeSharp01
Typo

[SteamyTea]

As I understand it, the Allam Cycle engine uses CO₂ as mass, then eventually, once it is too cold to be effective, captures it for storage.

It does need some method of generating oxygen, so I am sceptical of the efficiency claims, i.e. do they include the oxygen generation and the power used to compress the stored CO₂.

 

Most modern diesels capture waste exhaust and recycle it though the engine.  This is to help emissions as the SHC of air and exhaust gases are different.  Blend them right and there is an advantage (ignoring what VW/Bosch did).

Edited July 2, 2018 by SteamyTea