Climate Change Debate

[HAzelGroveWolf]

And if boeing, airbus or any high tech industry said that they would never sell anything.

I think you a confusing known and uncertain technologies. Companies through NDAs communicate their technology road maps there is an expectation of where things will be in a few years. We develop product likewise, nobody gets to play though until it works.
Your example of aerospace is also one where extraordinary levels of testing are required so the product on delivery probably doesn't have leading edge technologies. There are special considerations such as radiation hardness/environmental conditions/software for the electronics which will necessarily push things back.

 

[Tredman]

I think you a confusing known and uncertain technologies. Companies through NDAs communicate their technology road maps there is an expectation of where things will be in a few years. We develop product likewise, nobody gets to play though until it works.

No, I'm not. And your thinking is very naive.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

No, I'm not. And your thinking is very naive.

After 30 years in the electronics industry including some high reliability military stuff? (not saying the commercial stuff isn't reliable)
May I ask what your product development experience is?

 

[Johnny75]

After 30 years in the electronics industry including some high reliability military stuff?
May I ask what your product development experience is?

I don't have 30 but I do have the majority of my working life in PD and particularly in innovation. My company so my risk and that's where we differ. You do seem very conservative in your approach and whilst I appreciate your experience I think this kind of thinking is detrimental to product development and saying that tech must work for it to be considered is daft.

You know how things work, if the prototypes work then iteration 1 is developed even if it may not be the most efficient. You can then get on with iterations 2, 3, 4 and 5 over 10 years and you should know better than most that developing the technology is more important than getting it work straight out of the box, which rarely, if ever, happens.

I think your defeatist manner towards renewables is clouding your innovative judgement and it looks cynical. As an engineer I would expect you to look at renewables and ask WHY they are not wholly efficient all the time and how to make them better. I've not seen this anywhere from you and that in itself is sad. And that is regardless of the climate effect.

 

[visage]

Its very odd how your vague notions of what is viable seem to coincide with anything thats environmentally friendly. Its almost...dogmatic.

 

[visage]

Also, the notion that renewables arent continually improving is bunk:

Its pretty obvious that a) existing technologies are being refined continuously to be more efficient, and b) new technologies are continually emerging

HGW should applaud this innovation. Assuming he's not blinded by dogma....

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

I don't have 30 but I do have the majority of my working life in PD and particularly in innovation. My company so my risk and that's where we differ. You do seem very conservative in your approach and whilst I appreciate your experience I think this kind of thinking is detrimental to product development and saying that tech must work for it to be considered is daft.

You know how things work, if the prototypes work then iteration 1 is developed even if it may not be the most efficient. You can then get on with iterations 2, 3, 4 and 5 over 10 years and you should know better than most that developing the technology is more important than getting it work straight out of the box, which rarely, if ever, happens.

I think your defeatist manner towards renewables is clouding your innovative judgement and it looks cynical. As an engineer I would expect you to look at renewables and ask WHY they are not wholly efficient all the time and how to make them better. I've not seen this anywhere from you and that in itself is sad. And that is regardless of the climate effect.

Defeatist my arse. The limits are physical in terms of the available energy that can be extracted.
I would be concerned if any product warranted more than a couple of revisions, obviously a prototype is just that and what cleans up the uncertainies. Beyond that a new product is the next step.
Suggesting that technology should not necessarily work prior to sale is really DAFT. I like my customers, like the product to work. I take it that you don't give your customers the confidence in your products that you convey here.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Also, the notion that renewables arent continually improving is bunk:

Its pretty obvious that a) existing technologies are being refined continuously to be more efficient, and b) new technologies are continually emerging

HGW should applaud this innovation. Assuming he's not blinded by dogma....

Solar has improved but it needs area and ideal conditions for usefulness. Your graph suggest a top end realistic yield of 500W/m^2 in an ideal location at the top end of the day (average yield say 125W/m^2). Those numbers are not going to apply in the UK especially for times of maximum demand. PV in the UK doesn't register any significant metered contribution to the grid nor is it likely to.
I should also repeat that if we wish to replace industrial, heating and transport energy modes then the challenge is momentous. Practical solutions include increasing internal combustion engine and associated power train efficiency. There is plenty to pursue in that direction.
I've said before that the reasons for engineered efficiency are much more than 'saving the planet'.

 

[Johnny75]

Defeatist my arse. The limits are physical in terms of the available energy that can be extracted.
I would be concerned if any product warranted more than a couple of revisions, obviously a prototype is just that and what cleans up the uncertainies. Beyond that a new product is the next step.
Suggesting that technology should not necessarily work prior to sale is really DAFT. I like my customers, like the product to work. I take it that you don't give your customers the confidence in your products that you convey here.

Oh dear, i think you've misunderstood my point. Nevermind, you clearly think you know best and display what was wrong with product developers and innovators in the 80's and 90's. Thankfully people like you are being retired along with your thinking. Your employer really doesn't know how much you're holding their company back if you're their PD chief.

Still, if you think that's business then good luck to you. Enjoy your retirement, we will.

 

[Alan]

The more we invest in renewables, the more efficient those methods become. Surely this is common sense to any engineer? Or anyone in general?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Oh dear, i think you've misunderstood my point. Nevermind, you clearly think you know best and display what was wrong with product developers and innovators in the 80's and 90's. Thankfully people like you are being retired along with your thinking. Your employer really doesn't know how much you're holding their company back if you're their PD chief.

Still, if you think that's business then good luck to you. Enjoy your retirement, we will.

I'm not sure you made your point very well then, perhaps you can explain. I'm definitely not stuck in the '80s and '90s. Indeed I'm privy to much that will happen in the next 5 to 10 years although clearly how pecisely that is manifested there is much to considered. I live in a space where technology can take steps that sets new challenges.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

The more we invest in renewables, the more efficient those methods become. Surely this is common sense to any engineer? Or anyone in general?

Only if the energy is there in the first place. What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Do these sources exist at a useful energy density? Other technologies such as tidal suffer from the same problem even if they offer an element of prediction.

 

[Alan]

If the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we've got bigger problems.

You do understand that solar and wind energy don't run out the second that their sources take a rest, don't you?

 

[Johnny75]

I'm not sure you made your point very well then, perhaps you can explain. I'm definitely not stuck in the '80s and '90s. Indeed I'm privy to much that will happen in the next 5 to 10 years although clearly how pecisely that is manifested there is much to considered. I live in a space where technology can take steps that sets new challenges.

You might be privvy but I'll bet you have had absolutely no say in how the innovation came about. I can't imagine any forward thinking company would. The way you come across on here means your conservative narrow minded approach doesn't let things happen. It's a dismissive type of posting which says if it does not work when it arrives at you then it is dismissed.

It is what makes me doubt you are in PD at all. And certainly nowhere near innovation as your dismissal of prototypes and your lack of understanding of the difference between iteration and revisions show. I would bet you're actually a QE and have been booted from the innovation team a long time ago. It would explain your dismissive posting on any new technologies and why you think others can't develop new technologies where you can't see how they will work.

 

[visage]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...courses-into-solar-power-plants-10402042.html

Anothe example of a country ignoring HGW's 'wisdom'.

 

[nimrod]

I've recently read a report that said there's now >8GW of installed solar capacity in the UK

of which 2.5GW was in the first quarter(!) of this year

 

[visage]

That's simply not possible, according to the God of engineers.

 

[So Long Architect]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...now-top-british-institutions-tell-governments

A letter to governments signed by various scientific bodies.

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases."

“While the threats posed by climate change are far-reaching, the ways in which we tackle them can be a source of great opportunity,” it states. “Capturing this potential quickly and effectively will drive economic progress. There are also significant additional benefits available, including food, energy and water security, air quality [and] health improvements.”

The signatories: Academy of Medical Sciences, Academy of Social Sciences, British Academy, British Ecological Society, Challenger Society for Marine Science, Geological Society, Institution of Civil Engineers, Institute of Physics, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Institution of Environmental Sciences, Learned Society of Wales, London Mathematical Society, Royal Astronomical Society, Royal Economic Society, Royal Geographical Society, Royal Meteorological Society, Royal Society, Royal Society of Arts, Royal Society of Biology, Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of Edinburgh, Society for General Microbiology, Wellcome Trust, Zoological Society of London

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Mere pawns of the engineering world compared to their illustrious cousins in the field of electronics.

 

[Alan]

He's already debunked most Engineering groups as having "one or two" very vocal "alarmists" who speak out against the rest of the institution and somehow turn everyone against all logic.