Are we in a bubble?

[Khriss]

@agg221 well i have  been watching that fr last 30 years, still not seen the result 😕 K

[openspaceman]

20 minutes ago, agg221 said:

Aerospace has never looked worse and oil & gas is long-term shaky, but energy as a whole is buoyant, including nuclear at Hinkley point with Sizewell to follow and the Rolls Royce SMR programme, together with major investment in fusion

Rolls Royce also promote synthetic aero fuels  but have hived off their solid oxide fuel cell business to Korea, even so they have laid off loads of engineers and may well not survive if their submarine based modular reactors don't get the go ahead.

[agg221]

16 minutes ago, Khriss said:

@agg221 well i have  been watching that fr last 30 years, still not seen the result 😕 K

Which bit? Fusion or hydrogen I presume as the rest is fairly standard.

 

Hydrogen is a consequence of a couple of shifts. The first is that it is compliant with the net-zero agenda which means it is more viable as a source of fuel for longer range vehicles and for distributing in a gas network than most of the alternatives, although there is not enough platinum for us all to end up with fuel cell vehicles without a very radical change in catalyst efficiency (my first patent in 1998 was on fuel cell catalysts as I used to develop them for Johnson Matthey). The second shift is that electrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen is a viable way to use renewable energy which is generated out of sync. with demand (when the sun is shining people don't want the lights on...) Green hydrogen as it is known, as opposed to brown hydrogen made by steam reforming of carbon, is inherently free of carbon monoxide which is a major poison for catalysts. The cost of cleaning up reformate gas was one reason fuel cells did not make more progress than they have. Still not convinced that fuel cells are where hydrogen is going, but added to the standard gas network and used as a direct replacement fuel in internal combustion engines I think is more probable.

 

Fusion - the big steps forward are the ITER project and the decision run a UK Tokomak programme. Tesla and UKAEA are currently recruiting vigorously at the higher engineering end. There is a timeline for the Tokomak but I can't remember offhand what it is - I know it looked ambitious.

 

Alec

Edited March 28, 2021 by agg221

[Clutchy]

Domestic tree work bubble for sure! 

 

We are not looking to expand but just putting prices up and up and up. Whilst all the firms around us are starting to back up with months of average priced work we are only staying 2-3 weeks ahead but putting big money on everything. Soon people will have the choice of paying a lot more money with us or wait 3 months for a cheaper reputable firm and by then summer will be on its way out! 

 

This will end, and prices and quantity of work will go down. So looking to diversify into commercial at the end of this year with our surplus money. 

 

I think a lot of companies who have seriously increased their staffing levels are going to be in for a lean and rough ride in the winter after next...

[agg221]

8 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Rolls Royce also promote synthetic aero fuels  but have hived off their solid oxide fuel cell business to Korea, even so they have laid off loads of engineers and may well not survive if their submarine based modular reactors don't get the go ahead.

I think RR will be bailed out (again) as being of strategic national importance. Their aero engine business has been hugely impacted by the 'power by the hour' business model as with all the grounded planes they are not being paid. I can't comment on the submarine business but they have a programme to build small modular reactors for civil power generation - this has just had a very large government cash injection and it looks likely that they will be funded through to build. The hope is that they can sell them internationally. They also have an active programme developing electric flight - a major challenge as the energy density (kWh/kg) needs to be increased substantially to make this viable, but for short-hop flights it looks like we are probably less than a decade from the first commercial planes. The first test flights are scheduled for 2025.

 

I appear to have somewhat hijacked this thread - sorry!

 

Alec

[skyhuck]

6 minutes ago, agg221 said:

Which bit? Fusion or hydrogen I presume as the rest is fairly standard.

 

Hydrogen is a consequence of a couple of shifts. The first is that it is compliant with the net-zero agenda which means it is more viable as a source of fuel for longer range vehicles and for distributing in a gas network than most of the alternatives, although there is not enough platinum for us all to end up with fuel cell vehicles without a very radical change in catalyst efficiency (my first patent in 1998 was on fuel cell catalysts as I used to develop them for Johnson Matthey). The second shift is that electrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen is a viable way to use renewable energy which is generated out of sync. with demand (when the sun is shining people don't want the lights on...) Green hydrogen as it is known, as opposed to brown hydrogen made by steam reforming of carbon, is inherently free of carbon monoxide which is a major poison for catalysts. The cost of cleaning up reformate gas was one reason fuel cells did not make more progress than they have. Still not convinced that fuel cells are where hydrogen is going, but added to the standard gas network and used as a direct replacement fuel in internal combustion engines I think is more probable.

 

Fusion - the big steps forward are the ITER project and the decision run a UK Tokomak programme. Tesla and UKAEA are currently recruiting vigorously at the higher engineering end. There is a timeline for the Tokomak but I can't remember offhand what it is - I know it looked ambitious.

 

Alec

You are obviously a very clever chap.

 

Maybe you can answer a question my dad keeps bringing up. Apparently capacitors are much better alternative to batteries, why are they not used?

[aspenarb]

9 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

You are obviously a very clever chap.

 

Maybe you can answer a question my dad keeps bringing up. Apparently capacitors are much better alternative to batteries, why are they not used?

 

Doc Brown could answer that

 

Bob

[spudulike]

They don't hold as much charge, short burst of energy and they are depleted unlike a battery/cell.

[skyhuck]

14 minutes ago, spudulike said:

They don't hold as much charge, short burst of energy and they are depleted unlike a battery/cell.

My dad recons he saw a documentary in which Elon Musk put one in a car instead of the batteries, it increased the range and could be charged in 10minuets. He reckoned he was prevented from using them by the US government. This is all hearsay from my 79year old father.

[openspaceman]

26 minutes ago, agg221 said:

can't comment on the submarine business but they have a programme to build small modular reactors for civil power generation

The SMRs are derived from the power plants which were used in subs.