A repository type thread to share news from the world of Science. Because there’s interesting stuff afoot, some of which could change our world.
Quick caveat? News reporting of Science is typically oversimplistic, and quite often overhyped. So pinch of salt at hand. Though I’m happy to say our inaugural link seems…fairly balanced?
The bacteria exists. And in this application are genetically modified so the spores survived the process of making the plastic.
Seems an intriguing and encouraging development. And whilst I don’t disagree with the comments in the article about reducing reliance and use of plastic is probably a better idea? I say “why not both?”
The best thing we can do with plastic is recycle it. It can only be recycled in a traditional way so many times before it degrades too much, though there is a way to reduce degraded plastic to its polymers, essentially turning it into oil which can then be made into plastic again.
Of course we don’t live in an ideal world where all plastic is responsibly sent to recyclers. Still, I don’t see much benefit in deliberately making plastic that can be composted (as the article mentions).
Also I have concerns about making vast quantities of a bacteria that we don’t know much about. Apocalypse ahoy.
El Torro wrote: The best thing we can do with plastic is recycle it. It can only be recycled in a traditional way so many times before it degrades too much, though there is a way to reduce degraded plastic to its polymers, essentially turning it into oil which can then be made into plastic again.
Of course we don’t live in an ideal world where all plastic is responsibly sent to recyclers. Still, I don’t see much benefit in deliberately making plastic that can be composted (as the article mentions).
Also I have concerns about making vast quantities of a bacteria that we don’t know much about. Apocalypse ahoy.
Unfortunately, most plastic in single stream recycling ends up a landfill, often exported to developing countries so we never have to see it again. The best thing we can do is simply to stop using plastic as much as possible, with biodegradable plastics like this being a far second.
As my Environmental Science teacher observed more than 30 years ago, landfills are basically recycling storage bins for future generations. We've already learned that the methane generated by decomposition in them can be tapped for renewable energy. Storing plastics (and metals) for future use isn't a bad idea.
A repository type thread to share news from the world of Science. Because there’s interesting stuff afoot, some of which could change our world.
Quick caveat? News reporting of Science is typically oversimplistic, and quite often overhyped. So pinch of salt at hand. Though I’m happy to say our inaugural link seems…fairly balanced?
The bacteria exists. And in this application are genetically modified so the spores survived the process of making the plastic.
Seems an intriguing and encouraging development. And whilst I don’t disagree with the comments in the article about reducing reliance and use of plastic is probably a better idea? I say “why not both?”
I can't help but feel that whilst it might have a use, its not the best approach
Building a bio-degrading element into plastics that's based on a bacteria activating sounds to me like a disaster in the making for people if those bacteria spread. "Compost" is a diverse term. Would you have to worry that putting your plastic cup down on a muddy hill for a few hours whilst working could activate its bacteria and the next thing you know is your plastic mug bacteria has now spread to everything else in the cupboard and is eating its way toward your Warhammer!
I think bacteria at a controlled facility is far better; you control it and it reduces the chance of it getting out and doing funky bacteria things like evolving or spreading!
Building a bio-degrading element into plastics that's based on a bacteria activating sounds to me like a disaster in the making for people if those bacteria spread. "Compost" is a diverse term. Would you have to worry that putting your plastic cup down on a muddy hill for a few hours whilst working could activate its bacteria and the next thing you know is your plastic mug bacteria has now spread to everything else in the cupboard and is eating its way toward your Warhammer!
I think bacteria at a controlled facility is far better; you control it and it reduces the chance of it getting out and doing funky bacteria things like evolving or spreading!
Being able to eat plastic doesn't make this bacteria any better at protecting itself from the typical ways to control them, so even if it does start coming for your plasticrack you can control it.
And honestly if the worst that could happen is plastic eating bacteria might occasionally eat away at your unused dishes I think it would be worth the downside. Remember that this bacteria will still need the rest of the stuff that they need to grow, proper temperature, moisture, as well as food. The simple act of putting your cups through the dishwasher and drying them would probably make any worry a non-issue even if this bacteria did become endemic to the environment at large or was built into your plastic.
And if the spores are built into the plastic, they will only activate once the plastic is damaged in some way. The spores on the surface will be killed by you using it, washing it, etc... as they will activate and become vulnerable to those things. This will only leave the spores buried inside the plastic itself. Which presumably will only be exposed at some point when your plastic has been disposed of. Either crunched up in a facility for the biodegrading of the plastic itself OR left on the metaphorical side of the road where it can activate and the bacteria will be allowed to do their thing.
Yeah, thing is if the plastic already has to be damaged to activate surely its better to have that at a processing plant level; since there will surely be plastics on the market that the Bacteria won't work with.
Of course that's a very 1st world viewpoint where we can have effective waste collection, sorting and disposal. Poorer nations or those with less developed infrastructure might well welcome self degrading plastics as they won't have the infrastructure in place. Though honestly I suspect proper plastic control will require such infrastructure t obe developed anyway.
The way I see it from my limited knowledge and perspective? It’s a promising development and proof of concept, which in due course could be applied more widely and efficiently. The main thing being “we’ve genetically engineered the bacteria to be heat resistant” widening its possible applications.
And seriously, for dealing with carelessly discarded plastic? It’s a solid solution.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The way I see it from my limited knowledge and perspective? It’s a promising development and proof of concept, which in due course could be applied more widely and efficiently. The main thing being “we’ve genetically engineered the bacteria to be heat resistant” widening its possible applications.
And seriously, for dealing with carelessly discarded plastic? It’s a solid solution.
Given that our main non-chemical method for killing bacteria is heat, I’d want some rigorous testing done before those genes get released into the wild.
There was that wonderful incident back in the 90’s where somebody reengineered a soil bacteria (Klebsiella planticola from a quick Google) so that it directly produced ethanol as a potential green fuel, but only tested it in sterile soil. Fortunately right towards the end of the project someone thought to test it in real, non-sterile, soil and discovered that it could replace / interbreed with normal soil bacteria and the ethanol levels could severely affect domestic crops. It’s often touted that it could kill all plant life, which seems to be an exaggeration, but a significant, widespread reduction in crop yields would not be pretty for human society.
Make damn sure you understand all of the potential consequences, before you take something out of the lab.
so a case study for high temperature resistant bacteria that is inserted into plastics so that the material is decomposing over time
yet they don't know if there are any negative side products (aka poisonous chemical compounds) and if the bacteria is really decomposing the plastic and not just generating micro plastic
count me impressed that the basic idea for the future of "just make less plastic" is still set aside with "maybe we found a solution so better wait some years to see if this is going to work"
As my Environmental Science teacher observed more than 30 years ago, landfills are basically recycling storage bins for future generations. We've already learned that the methane generated by decomposition in them can be tapped for renewable energy. Storing plastics (and metals) for future use isn't a bad idea.
That would be nice if plastics stayed in the landfills. Unfortunately, they don't, with microplastics and chemicals leaching into the water supply. Landfills account for about 40% of the world's microplastics.
That's wild! That kind of targeted repair could be a huge thing for a lot of people born with a whole variety of conditions. Heck being able to repair DNA in theory could also mean eventually being able to limit effects of aging since a lot of aging is basically DNA picking up errors after being copied so so so many times (here endeth my limited medical understanding)
It could be major for stuff like Sickle Cell Anemea, which is probably the genetic illness that first comes to my mind as being particularly widespread.
Certainly as a proof of efficacy and not just concept? This feels like a major step forward.
No biggie... It's only happened twice before - the last time it resulted in plants; the first time it resulted in all eukaryotic (non-bacterial) life forms...
I suspect cystic fibrosis will be next, the respiratory tract is also very amenable to a viral vehicle.
Sickle cell will be a bit harder because it would require a virus that can reach the bone marrow, and most of those could have pretty serious consequences if the attenuation is unsuccessful (like HIV).
No biggie... It's only happened twice before - the last time it resulted in plants; the first time it resulted in all eukaryotic (non-bacterial) life forms...
Interesting. Starting to look like that’s not behind the Fermi Paradox then.
Be very, very sceptical of this kind of claim. This sounds like another version of the EMdrive, which has been knocking around for two decades at this point without having any definitive evidence that it actually works. Any anomalous results in independent testing of the device have eventually been traced to errors or artefacts of the test setup.
Fundamentally, if someone tells you they’ve invented something that breaks or rewrites the laws of physics, they are almost certainly wrong. Or trying to scam you.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It could be major for stuff like Sickle Cell Anemea, which is probably the genetic illness that first comes to my mind as being particularly widespread.
Certainly as a proof of efficacy and not just concept? This feels like a major step forward.
But the mutation that makes sickle cell anemia widespread is also responsible for immunity or heightened resistance to malaria. Which is why a deleterious (well, for those of us in malaria-free countries) mutation like that was able to spread in the first place.
Wonder if gene therapy can fix one without touching the other.
From memory, SCA is due to receiving TWO copies of the mutant gene (i.e. from BOTH parents), one copy gives you a slight resistance to malaria but not the other issues.
Like Haemochromatosis requires two copies of a specific gene (one each from both parents) or a few other inherited conditions.
Another very exciting possible advance, as it’s done by using the recycling of steel too, in a way that allows for solar and wind power to generate the electricity.
So not an overnight fix like, but a pretty promising thing all the same.
Another very exciting possible advance, as it’s done by using the recycling of steel too, in a way that allows for solar and wind power to generate the electricity.
So not an overnight fix like, but a pretty promising thing all the same.
I saw that earlier and it’s a pretty big deal; not just because it’s a big two for one (concrete recycled would be a big deal, but using waste heat is *chef’s kiss*), but also sounds like something you can just do, with minimal changes in equipment or process for the steel production. A+, would recommend.
Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.
Be very skeptical with claims like that in media. 99% of the time that's sensationalism.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that basically these two studies found stars whose light output is periodically reduced.
They don't know the cause (yet). Could be - probably is - an exceptionally dense asteroid/meteor/Oort cloud orbiting, a gas cloud, or some other natural phenomenon, but with no proof positive of what it actually is they can't rule out "Aliens!! Zomg!!" (yet). So the reporter goes "Aliens!!Zomg!!"...
But in astronomy, the answer is never "aliens". At least so far.
Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.
Be very skeptical with claims like that in media. 99% of the time that's sensationalism.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that basically these two studies found stars whose light output is periodically reduced.
They don't know the cause (yet). Could be - probably is - an exceptionally dense asteroid/meteor/Oort cloud orbiting, a gas cloud, or some other natural phenomenon, but with no proof positive of what it actually is they can't rule out "Aliens!! Zomg!!" (yet). So the reporter goes "Aliens!!Zomg!!"...
But in astronomy, the answer is never "aliens". At least so far.
You don't have to be an edgy know it all here, friend. The article is right there to read.
Another very exciting possible advance, as it’s done by using the recycling of steel too, in a way that allows for solar and wind power to generate the electricity.
So not an overnight fix like, but a pretty promising thing all the same.
I saw that earlier and it’s a pretty big deal; not just because it’s a big two for one (concrete recycled would be a big deal, but using waste heat is *chef’s kiss*), but also sounds like something you can just do, with minimal changes in equipment or process for the steel production. A+, would recommend.
Yup. Sure, for the carbon neutral approach you’d need an electric kiln and the worky gubbins to power it. But as I understand it, that’s such a promising technology in itself widespread adoption is already expected. If you can now twofer your recycling without doubling your investment (as I imagine there must be some additional cost)? That’s got to appeal as an investment. Spesh as demand for steel and concrete are hardly going to reduce.
Plus, interestingly, those in the business of demolition may stand to make higher profits if the concrete of a demolished building will then carry value in itself.
Only drawback I can see, and I can’t see the article touches on, is what’s the ratio of steel to slag necessary for recycling?
“The Cambridge team estimate, given current rates of steel recycling, their low carbon cement could produce as much as a quarter of UK demand.”
However, if it’s a much greener way of producing concrete, and allows you to recycle rubble rather than use raw material, I do wonder if there would be a case for just doing it this way, independent of steel production. Just use a small amount of steel as a flux.
Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.
Be very skeptical with claims like that in media. 99% of the time that's sensationalism.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that basically these two studies found stars whose light output is periodically reduced.
They don't know the cause (yet). Could be - probably is - an exceptionally dense asteroid/meteor/Oort cloud orbiting, a gas cloud, or some other natural phenomenon, but with no proof positive of what it actually is they can't rule out "Aliens!! Zomg!!" (yet). So the reporter goes "Aliens!!Zomg!!"...
But in astronomy, the answer is never "aliens". At least so far.
You don't have to be an edgy know it all here, friend. The article is right there to read.
Edgy? How so? And know-it-all? I was right.
Though to the author's credit, they did mention at the bottom of the article that natural explanations have to be ruled out first. But the title was, in fact, Zomg!!Aliens!!, albeit in slightly fancier words.
- the article is sensationalist, which it isn't
- an incorrect assumption on what the studies found
- a couple of explanations that had already been ruled out by the studies (in fact the whole point of the studies was to rule out the easiest natural explanations)
So just arrogant cynicism for the sake of arrogant cynicism, based on a headline
Now now. You know that the vast majority of people only read headlines and skim articles, so him calling out the click-baity headline is still completely justified.
Its an example of terrible "technically correct" journalism that still spreads sensationalism and misinformation while having enough plausible deniability if you actually read the entire thing. But as above, most people do not read the entire thing and the author knows that and is taking advantage of it.
You say "Well, the study could mean X..." allow the reader's mind to run wild and then leave the article. Then later on in the boring part at the bottom you say "So X is almost certainly not the answer, its more likely boring old Y" but at this point the average Twitter Twit has long left the article.
Yeah. Whilst the universe almost certainly contains or contained extraterrestrial life somewhere else, constellations of dyson spheres is pretty damn low on the likelihood scale.
I also wasn't wrong on any of those points. The stars have a variable light output - which means it dims from time to time - which is what I said...
I said "we don't know why yet". Also correct. I then threw in a couple of possible explanations off the top of my head and specifically mentioned "currently unknown natural phenomenon". That some of those explanations had already been ruled out doesn't invalidate the rest, or the point in general.
And no, it wasn't cynicism. Sadness, more than anything else. There are so many genuinely fantastic, beautiful, fascinating, and weird things out there, this oversomplified sensationalism cheapens both that and the effort and accomplishments of the scientists.
From what I gather the AI speech recognition simply isn't good enough to recognise different local dialects/idioms, individual speech patterns, or filter out background noise like children on the backseat talking.
Plus AI order malfunctioning videos makes for easy social media fodder which in turn gives negative publicity which obviously the Clown doesn't want.
The other thing is that AI still lacks contextual understanding of what its doing. It simply cannot grasp that Bacon Ice Cream is wrong or that Hundreds of Dollars of Nuggets is abnormal.
Sure you can program in some hard limits and so forth, but you'll be creating loads of exceptions and such to tune the AI. That's a lot of work and you'll still be open to abuse of the system.
Plus as its AI you can easily get a lot more people who will try to abuse it for self gain; funny videos or just personal entertainment; because who cares its a machine.
AI has its place but its an insanely long way from being properly robust. If anything its an ok setup for filtering early information on a situation, but it requires a skilled human operator to keep tweaking the AI and then another skilled human operator to take the basic information and actually apply proper context, understanding and so forth.
Generative AI is just very good pattern recognition. If it is fed a weird pattern in training, that is what it will recognise.
Generative AI has some genuinely good uses that are already entering everyday practice, but these are for tasks that require large volumes of pattern recognition. For example, AI is being used in histopathology diagnosis of biopsy samples, which is essentially looking at a bunch of slides and identifying what pattern it matches. The same is happening in radiology for reporting scans (currently for simple ones like a chest xray). These are within their proper context as a productivity boost for actual humans, rather than trying to replace humans (there is a shortage of pathologists and radiologists which helps).
But if you want anything creative and not simply recognising patterns, generative AI isn't a good answer.
From a YouTube channel I enjoy, more on the world of Spinosaurs.
What I love about the ongoing Spinosaur debate is getting to watch science at work in realtime. Evidence is gathered, research is done, conclusions/hypotheses are offered. Then new evidence is introduced and it’s all up in the air again.
Because science is a work in progress, and addresses new evidence as and when it comes up.
Haighus wrote: Generative AI is just very good pattern recognition. If it is fed a weird pattern in training, that is what it will recognise.
Generative AI has some genuinely good uses that are already entering everyday practice, but these are for tasks that require large volumes of pattern recognition. For example, AI is being used in histopathology diagnosis of biopsy samples, which is essentially looking at a bunch of slides and identifying what pattern it matches. The same is happening in radiology for reporting scans (currently for simple ones like a chest xray). These are within their proper context as a productivity boost for actual humans, rather than trying to replace humans (there is a shortage of pathologists and radiologists which helps).
But if you want anything creative and not simply recognising patterns, generative AI isn't a good answer.
Yeah and something like diagnosis work would hopefully work with a closed system of data input. So its only being fed reliable accurate data to start with and start spotting patterns from
Haighus wrote: Generative AI is just very good pattern recognition. If it is fed a weird pattern in training, that is what it will recognise.
Generative AI has some genuinely good uses that are already entering everyday practice, but these are for tasks that require large volumes of pattern recognition. For example, AI is being used in histopathology diagnosis of biopsy samples, which is essentially looking at a bunch of slides and identifying what pattern it matches. The same is happening in radiology for reporting scans (currently for simple ones like a chest xray). These are within their proper context as a productivity boost for actual humans, rather than trying to replace humans (there is a shortage of pathologists and radiologists which helps).
But if you want anything creative and not simply recognising patterns, generative AI isn't a good answer.
Yeah and something like diagnosis work would hopefully work with a closed system of data input. So its only being fed reliable accurate data to start with and start spotting patterns from
The really interesting / exciting bit there is if you feed it scans with a “got sick” “didn’t get sick”, regardless of whether the doctors could see anything in the scans, it might start detecting a pattern that’s invisible to us. But, as mentioned, this relies on rigorous, scientific, training with controlled data and very preferably some sort of auditing system that tells you why the AI made the determination it did, so that you can understand and check it.
Haighus wrote: Generative AI is just very good pattern recognition. If it is fed a weird pattern in training, that is what it will recognise.
Generative AI has some genuinely good uses that are already entering everyday practice, but these are for tasks that require large volumes of pattern recognition. For example, AI is being used in histopathology diagnosis of biopsy samples, which is essentially looking at a bunch of slides and identifying what pattern it matches. The same is happening in radiology for reporting scans (currently for simple ones like a chest xray). These are within their proper context as a productivity boost for actual humans, rather than trying to replace humans (there is a shortage of pathologists and radiologists which helps).
But if you want anything creative and not simply recognising patterns, generative AI isn't a good answer.
Yeah and something like diagnosis work would hopefully work with a closed system of data input. So its only being fed reliable accurate data to start with and start spotting patterns from
The really interesting / exciting bit there is if you feed it scans with a “got sick” “didn’t get sick”, regardless of whether the doctors could see anything in the scans, it might start detecting a pattern that’s invisible to us. But, as mentioned, this relies on rigorous, scientific, training with controlled data and very preferably some sort of auditing system that tells you why the AI made the determination it did, so that you can understand and check it.
This is happening with xray images. It is a very powerful tool in the right circumstances.
Agreed, plus they likely have random reviews of "clean/healthy" results the AI generates to ensure that its not missing patterns or that there are patterns its not spotting.
AI might spot patterns that are in complex areas or that are smaller or more subtle than normal; but it might not have the ability to spot a new/different pattern. So I think human review would be all important on the clean results.
There has been a diagnostic AI tool, that came to the conclusion that rulers (like, measuring devices) are malignant - because it was measuring skin cancers, and rulers only appeared in the photos of malignant spots.
Which is amusing, but highlights some limitations of AI at the moment.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: There has been a diagnostic AI tool, that came to the conclusion that rulers (like, measuring devices) are malignant - because it was measuring skin cancers, and rulers only appeared in the photos of malignant spots.
Which is amusing, but highlights some limitations of AI at the moment.
Indeed. AI will sense ALL patterns, not just ones relevant to the issue.
It may even sense patterns that we are unaware even exist, but are also irrelevant.
Its kinda the same thing that is behind the Sci-fi trope of AI is made, asked to help humanity. AI determines that humanity is its own worst enemy, and decides to destroy humanity for its own good. Maybe not as extreme, but the same idea.
Oh yeah, there are lots of pitfalls and it certainly isn't the magic bullet it gets presented as in the media. But it is definitely entering healthcare in a big way over the coming years.
The hospital I work at has been validating an AI chest xray reporting system for about a year now. You can see the autoreports when you go to read the xray. Very interesting to see, and it has become noticeably better over that time too.
This was quite a cool little article, particularly using a 4x4 like a Hilux as a test bed. To me, Hydrogen fuel has always been the way forward and it's great to see that becoming a possibility.
Yeah as I understand it that's always been the huge barrier. Designing a car that can take a hit and not turn into a massive Hollywood style explosive event. Especially because it will never just be one car, but several and if you get a multi-car pile-up the last thing you want is it being like a chain reaction of explosions setting others off!
Heck electric cars still have issues with conduction and long term burning when they have accidents and I do wonder if they need to be fitted with a pressurised foam deployment system that just bathes the battery bay in a smothering foam if they detect a major collision
I think refueling via pressurised gas is the bigger issue. You need the pressurisation for the energy density, but you can't do that with a typical station pump unless the compressor is on the car (which uses energy). Safety is a problem, but frankly many parts of the world already accept deathtraps on the road.
Battery fires are less explosive than hydrogen but an absolute pig to extinguish and produce exceptionally toxic smoke. Especially awful if it happens in a tunnel... *glances at Las Vegas*
I worry the Toyota is a working vehicle but not a practical vehicle to bring onto the market.
I think right now there's a bunch of combustion engine based designs that use the same or parts of the same infrastructure which are being shown around as a means to keeping those factories about.
The trade off is that IF you can land a working model you can start production with a already party established infrastructure instead of having to shift everything to electrical car design and production.
I think Vauxhall are also trying to land the new green fuel supporting car that does the same.
The article says its a fuel cell. I thought that led to electrical power rather than mechanical power, so it might have more in common with electric vehicles mechanically, even if the vehicle equipment layout is more conventional compared to batter EVs.
I always though hydrogen fuel cells were a type of EV. But so are hybrids, functionally, so the engineering is widespread for cars containing electric motors providing motive power. The challenge with EVs is where the electricity comes from, not the motors.
Haighus wrote: I always though hydrogen fuel cells were a type of EV. But so are hybrids, functionally, so the engineering is widespread for cars containing electric motors providing motive power. The challenge with EVs is where the electricity comes from, not the motors.
Current hybrids are generally either engine with motor assist/takeover, or EV with petrol-diesel electrical generator.
Haighus wrote: I always though hydrogen fuel cells were a type of EV. But so are hybrids, functionally, so the engineering is widespread for cars containing electric motors providing motive power. The challenge with EVs is where the electricity comes from, not the motors.
Current hybrids are generally either engine with motor assist/takeover, or EV with petrol-diesel electrical generator.
Ah, wasn't aware of the former, was referring to the latter type
Flinty wrote: The article says its a fuel cell. I thought that led to electrical power rather than mechanical power, so it might have more in common with electric vehicles mechanically, even if the vehicle equipment layout is more conventional compared to batter EVs.
It is indeed a fuel cell. It's basically an electric car in terms of the motive architecture but the hydrogen fuel cell acts as an onboard generator so instead of storing electrical energy in a battery like an EV does, you use the energy from the hydrogen to create electricity. You get longer range, faster fuelling and at least theoretically you can adapt the existing infrastructure to pump hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel. I think in practice it may not prove to be that simple and there are still big problems with the infrastructure and how we produce the hydrogen itself.
Battery EVs may not "refill" as fast and may have shorter ranges, but the ranges are increasing all the time and are not far off what many people would view as adequate for the vast majority of journeys. Charging speeds are increasing too, but will never get close to what you can get from a petrol, diesel or hydrogen pump. The massive advantage for EVs is how easy it is to set up the charging infrastructure. You can have a wall box at home if you have off-street parking, and installing charging stations in car parks or on streets is very simple compared to dealing with pressurised, flammable gas. I've had an EV for 5 years now and even with around 140 miles of range we rarely have to charge away from home.
The real issue with hydrogen is the same as electric cars. Its only as clean and cheap as the power you need to make it. So utterly useless unless the world adopts large scale nuclear power.
Grey Templar wrote: The real issue with hydrogen is the same as electric cars. Its only as clean and cheap as the power you need to make it. So utterly useless unless the world adopts large scale nuclear power.
Most renewable energy is cheap these days. The problem isn't cost, it is intermittency. Hydrogen power actually overcomes a lot of the intermittency problems of most renewable energy sources. It can be used to convert wind, solar etc. into stored energy, so it is very helpful in that regard.
The issue is efficiency is quite low regardless of electricity source. I recall around 50%, so half the energy is lost when converting it into hydrogen. This is worse than, say, pumped hydro storage, but much more space efficient and requiring less monumental infrastructure. If there is an efficiency breakthrough on hydrogen production it will be a big deal.
Ahh yeah I got the fuel cells mixed up with alternative combustion fuels!
Grey Templar wrote: The real issue with hydrogen is the same as electric cars. Its only as clean and cheap as the power you need to make it. So utterly useless unless the world adopts large scale nuclear power.
I still lament the fact that the west has been so slow to adapt more nuclear power stations. You don't have to flood thousands of acres of upland and mess up river systems; you don't have to build huge farms of glass or huge windmills; you don't have to wait for the "right weather" and honestly the output of most nuclear stations in terms of waste is manageable. Plus whilst fusion is the golden egg of clean easy power; we are still so far off actually having a viable sustained reaction at a production level that can be used as a powersource.
It strikes me as somewhat daft that you've counties like Japan with loads of nuclear power plants situated on the "Ring of Fire" whilst a lot of European countries are pretty stable. No hurricanes or volcanoes for the most part. So super safe to build nuclear power stations in.
Grey Templar wrote: The real issue with hydrogen is the same as electric cars. Its only as clean and cheap as the power you need to make it. So utterly useless unless the world adopts large scale nuclear power.
Most renewable energy is cheap these days. The problem isn't cost, it is intermittency. Hydrogen power actually overcomes a lot of the intermittency problems of most renewable energy sources. It can be used to convert wind, solar etc. into stored energy, so it is very helpful in that regard.
The issue is efficiency is quite low regardless of electricity source. I recall around 50%, so half the energy is lost when converting it into hydrogen. This is worse than, say, pumped hydro storage, but much more space efficient and requiring less monumental infrastructure. If there is a breakthrough on hydrogen production it will ne a big deal.
Renewables are not just highly intermittent, they are also quite limited in where you can actually do them. Solar is the least limited, but its also the most intermittent.
Wind farms are cool, if you have a spot where you can actually do them. There are actually very few locations where wind is practical, both in consistency and proximity to end users, and most of them are already being taken advantage of.
Geothermal again requires you to be lucky enough that you have geothermal near a location where you actually need power. Does you no good if its the middle of nowhere.
This is why nuclear is the answer. We have billions of years worth of fuel on this planet, more than enough to last till we unlock resources in space. The only other resource it requires is water, something which is always available where humans will be, and other than that it can go anywhere.
Grey Templar wrote: This is why nuclear is the answer. We have billions of years worth of fuel on this planet, more than enough to last till we unlock resources in space.
The problems are disposal, and accidents. In the main, nuclear power is clean and cheap (ish), and plentiful as you say.
Where-as, renewables can store excess power as Hydrogen, which as a by-product, is a win-win. Get enough excess, and hydrogen is just there, when you need it. Not just as vehicle fuel, but as backup power.
Renewables work best when mixed. Put solar, wind and tidal all feeding one plant, and you're covered.
Geothermal again requires you to be lucky enough that you have geothermal near a location where you actually need power. Does you no good if its the middle of nowhere.
Most of the time, it and you will be in the middle of nowhere. Build it as big as you like.
Essentially every house and building can accommodate solar panels, they aren't meaningfully limited by location and are still useful even at latitudes as high as the UK. Hence why intermittency is the main issue. But hydrogen generation can happen during the day with excess power, and stored for later use.
Nuclear is necessary for maintaining a grid without using coal or gas unless a region is very lucky (like Iceland with geothermic) but not for generating hydrogen.
Solar generating hydrogen is being keenly looked at. A lot of countries with the exponential growth of solar (I think at last count the installed base was doubling every 3 years) and poor storage are looking at that mix of power stations to cover the intermittent nature and also fuel their logistic infrastructure with hydrogen looking better for HGVs than batteries currently (and EV charging also being a thing).
The number of countries who are getting to the point for generating more energy than needed with solar is interesting.
There was a recent report of an electric car with a battery that charged to 80% in 5 mins. The range wasn’t great in the prototype, but it shows a handy direction of travel now that super fast charger infrastructure is expanding more.
Storage facilities are being looked at way too late. If it were me, that's the first thing I would be looking at in conjunction with renewable energy.
Hydrogen does require abundant renewable energy to be sustainable but that is within reach. The trouble is making sure governments are promoting research and subsidising cost to allow greater availability.
There are pilot projects on the go for running existing municipal gas grids off hydrogen. They run into “but hydrogen is dangerous, i don’t want that in my house” and current higher costs for hydrogen ready appliances. Oh and “it will all end up being fuelled with hydrocarbon derived H2 so why bother”
Flow batteries must surely be somewhere as they always sounded like a great solution.
For the cost of a forest full of waste PPE gear, so much more could be done.
Grey Templar wrote: This is why nuclear is the answer. We have billions of years worth of fuel on this planet, more than enough to last till we unlock resources in space.
The problems are disposal, and accidents. In the main, nuclear power is clean and cheap (ish), and plentiful as you say.
Where-as, renewables can store excess power as Hydrogen, which as a by-product, is a win-win. Get enough excess, and hydrogen is just there, when you need it. Not just as vehicle fuel, but as backup power.
Renewables work best when mixed. Put solar, wind and tidal all feeding one plant, and you're covered.
The actual risks of nuclear are way overblown. Chernobyl was basically almost as bad as it could possibly be short of deliberately trying to make it worse, and at the end of the day its not that bad considering.
Disposal is also fairly easy. Its not hard to dig massive deep mineshafts in the desert that are going to be proof for many millennia. Plus spent fuel has its own uses sometimes.
People shouldn't base their fear of nuclear upon what the Soviets did, they weren't exactly good at doing much.
also the Japanese and US hat their fair share of problems, not just at the reactor stage but already in making the fuel
the main problem with nuclear is that we still don't know everything that may happen, like Chernobyl was so bad because everyone thought that a reactor can never explode but the melting core is the worst possible accident (and we still don't know what excatly exploded there)
and the same problem with storrage of waste, we don't know all possibilities and therefore cannot prepare for them
yet when it comes down to cheap and clean energy, nuclear is simply no option any more as other technologies are available
it is just that there is no single tech that solves evrything but different types for different regions/needs
people trying to again fit a single solution for every problem is the main issue currently, as this will never work
The biggest problem with hydrogen at the moment is that the vast majority of it is actually produced from natural gas extraction and is absolutely not green. Of course it can be produced by electrolysis from renewable energy, but at the moment it’s not, so there’s a whole other set of infrastructure that needs to be built alongside the shipping and distribution to do that at industrial scale.
The other problem, particularly in the vehicle scenario, is that hydrogen is really slippery stuff. It’s a very small molecule and it leaks out of your storage container very quickly. Essentially, if you fill up your car at the start of the week and park it on the drive, by the end of the week you’ll need to fill it up again.
storage solution for hydrogen is with metal hydrids, it was already a commercial viable technology 20 years ago but considered not useful for cars because it is too heavy compared to liquid fuel (yet much lighter than current battery solutions) but still the best one for storage of large amounts
and cars are a problem of their own as the solution for too many cars is not a different engine
Olthannon wrote: Storage facilities are being looked at way too late. If it were me, that's the first thing I would be looking at in conjunction with renewable energy.
Storage is expensive, and the raw materials are being used elsewhere. The battery storage for infrastructure is currently all going into EVs, not leaving a lot for that.
There are storage projects going up (Aus had a huge one last year), and alternatives to batteries have been a thing for decades (https://www.visitcruachan.co.uk/ for water), along with melting salt, etc.
Olthannon wrote: Storage facilities are being looked at way too late. If it were me, that's the first thing I would be looking at in conjunction with renewable energy.
Storage is expensive, and the raw materials are being used elsewhere. The battery storage for infrastructure is currently all going into EVs, not leaving a lot for that.
There are storage projects going up (Aus had a huge one last year), and alternatives to batteries have been a thing for decades (https://www.visitcruachan.co.uk/ for water), along with melting salt, etc.
Widespread gas storage is practical, we used to have gasometers all over the place. They are barely needed on the current grid but intermittent gas production with a mismatch to usage loads is exactly the situation they were developed for. I wonder if the old designs can hold hydrogen effectively.
Electric mountain is great (anyone else go on a school trip?), but stored hydro is big infrastructure.
I am sure the holes in the ground from mining battery bits are just as big We went when on holiday along Loch Fyne
I hear the main difference between Natural Gas and Hydrogen in the size of the molecules. Hydrogen leaks out at any point whhere the gaps are too big, and any joint in natural gas pipework has holes that are too big. Loads of pipes to be relaid. But once that is in and done, it's all back to being just pipes. Retrofitted gasometers will probably still do the job, if there are any still around.
Flinty wrote: There was a recent report of an electric car with a battery that charged to 80% in 5 mins. The range wasn’t great in the prototype, but it shows a handy direction of travel now that super fast charger infrastructure is expanding more.
I just saw a video about a new sodium nuclear power plant with an integrated energy storage facility using molten salt of some composition or other.
Sodium powerplants aren't new, but the energy storage thing is. It would allow the plant to ramp up electricity generation much more quickly than traditional nuclear plants. That has always been a problem for them (alongside significant wear and tear on various parts when using traditional "ramp up and slow down the nuclear reaction" techs), so this could be a game changer.
One potential downside is that the molten salt storage while more efficient than hydrogen generation has limited shelf life - measured in days - compared to H2. Though I suppose it would be a simple matter to attach an H2 plant to utilise any excess salt energy into H2 so you get both the benefits of higher efficiency on direct use and long-term storage albeit at less efficiency.
Bran Dawri wrote: I just saw a video about a new sodium nuclear power plant with an integrated energy storage facility using molten salt of some composition or other.
Sodium powerplants aren't new, but the energy storage thing is. It would allow the plant to ramp up electricity generation much more quickly than traditional nuclear plants. That has always been a problem for them (alongside significant wear and tear on various parts when using traditional "ramp up and slow down the nuclear reaction" techs), so this could be a game changer.
One potential downside is that the molten salt storage while more efficient than hydrogen generation has limited shelf life - measured in days - compared to H2. Though I suppose it would be a simple matter to attach an H2 plant to utilise any excess salt energy into H2 so you get both the benefits of higher efficiency on direct use and long-term storage albeit at less efficiency.
Sounds like its just storing more liquid sodium in the system than a normal sodium nuclear reactor.
For those who don't know. Nuclear reactors typically operate by heating up water with the reactor to steam, then that steam is used to turn the turbines.
Sodium reactors kind of add a middle step. Instead of heating up water, the reactor heats up a loop of liquid sodium. This liquid sodium is then used to heat water into steam to turn turbines. The advantages are that sodium has a far far higher thermal capacity than water without much expansion. Which means the chance of a sodium reactor exploding is basically none.
Seems like this idea is basically to just take full advantage of being able to run a nuclear reactor constantly. Its normally very annoying to fluctuate a nuclear power plant's output to match demand because they are somewhat ponderous to start and stop, but a sodium plant could just be run constantly and you can use excess energy to do stuff like make hydrogen.
Which really could still be done with a normal reactor, just ensuring that where the reactor is there is always demand.
From what I understood the molten salt storage is in a reservoir closeby but separated from the actual nuclear generator. It wasn't specified if the salt is heated by the reactor directly or with an extra step via the regular heated sodium as an intermediate. Or maybe I missed that bit.
But yeah, the idea is that having more excess heat stored that's directly accessible for powering the turbines means you can change output quickly without having to change the core's output on a moment's notice
Oh its all kept liquid via the reactor. Not easy to keep thousands of gallons of sodium in liquid form without nuclear radiation. And you don't want it to cool to a point where it starts solidifying in the pipes.
Basically its a closed loop with the sodium being pumped through the reactor, out to the steam turbines, and the back into the reactor to heat it back up. Mind you, even once the sodium leaves the steam turbines and has "cooled" it is still very hot.
main advantage being that the core is already molten and you don't need radioactive material to fuel it once it is running
it also runs under normal pressure so there cannot be any pressure explosion, but it does not mean any uncontrolled fission is impossible
Haighus wrote: I wonder how they have solved the issues of pressurising hydrogen and also safety when driving round a tank full of pressurised hydrogen.
They haven't exactly solved the issue of having a tank of gasoline - or worse, a tank of gasoline vapor - yet. We still get gas-powered cars catching fire even today. Granted, it's fairly rare, but it still happens.
Haighus wrote: I wonder how they have solved the issues of pressurising hydrogen and also safety when driving round a tank full of pressurised hydrogen.
They haven't exactly solved the issue of having a tank of gasoline - or worse, a tank of gasoline vapor - yet. We still get gas-powered cars catching fire even today. Granted, it's fairly rare, but it still happens.
A petrol fire is manageable though, and petrol explosions are extremely rare. A pressurised hydrogen tank is liable to explode much easier.
kodos wrote: no its not, a gasoline tanks is still more dangerous, as fire and to explode than a hydrogen tank
for hydrogen to explode, there need to be the right temperature and the right amount of oxygen
a hydrogen tank exploding looks like this:
What does it look like if it happens at an 80mph impact or 160mph impact (relative when head on from two 80mph vehicles) instead of falling over? The former is what you might see with an automobile collision.
basically the same, as to explode it you need the necessary energy and oxygen mix
the same way gasoline does not explode on a car crash, as for the explosion the mixture need to be right
hydrogen will burn if ignited but not explode
what people think of is Oxyhydrogen, a gas were hydrogen and oxygen are already mixed and this will easily explode if under pressure (under normal pressure there won't be an explosion)
this is usually what is seen in experiments with balloons filled with gas and ignited, but there is already an explosive mix under pressure inside the balloon
if the mix is formed outside the tank, it won't explode because it is not under pressure any more, and inside the tank there is no oxygen
Also a single loose gas bottle that's designed to do what that video showed is a little different from one strapped or built-in to a moving vehicle. Pressure explosions can be every bit as nasty as chemical ones.
Hydrogen ignites much much more readily than gasoline fumes though, and since it also requires a pressure tank the combo is a bad one.
A gas tank that gets penetrated might or might not ignite, but relatively speaking it will burn much more slowly if it does. And if it doesn't ignite its not going to hurt anybody. A hydrogen tank that gets violently disassembled is going to explode even if it doesn't ignite, and it is much more likely to ignite in the first place.
The thing you have to remember is that if cars didn’t already exist there is no way they would be allowed on the roads as a new invention.
“We’ve designed this metal box to transport people from place to place. It will be capable of moving at twice the legal speed limit (four times in urban areas), with no restrictions other than what the operator chooses to do, its powered by highly flammable and/or explosive gasoline and emits a whole load of particulates and chemicals that cause severe respiratory problems (plus a bunch of CO2). Oh and anyone will be allowed to operate one for their entire life, following a single, basic and generic, training course when they are a teenager.”
Jadenim wrote: The thing you have to remember is that if cars didn’t already exist there is no way they would be allowed on the roads as a new invention.
“We’ve designed this metal box to transport people from place to place. It will be capable of moving at twice the legal speed limit (four times in urban areas), with no restrictions other than what the operator chooses to do, its powered by highly flammable and/or explosive gasoline and emits a whole load of particulates and chemicals that cause severe respiratory problems (plus a bunch of CO2). Oh and anyone will be allowed to operate one for their entire life, following a single, basic and generic, training course when they are a teenager.”
“Get out.”
The thing is not only did cars evolve over time but society evolved to rely on them.
We now rely on cars very heavily as a society unless you live in a modern urbanised environment. Otherwise lots of bus and train services in the countryside are gone (UK side even masses of track pulled up post-war). The Pandemic actually made home delivery more viable to survive on; but at the same time that still relies on the car (Vans). Take away cars and the whole infrastructure would need to be rebuilt from the ground up. There'd also be a lot of life-expectations that would have to change or adjust too.
Consider the “not being squished” as a car passenger or drive chances, and how whilst far from idiot proof, they’ve become ever less riskier to drive.
No one innovation makes a particularly significant difference. But…ABS, three point seatbelts, crumple zones, inbuilt roll cage type things, collision detection sensors and so on and so forth all, step by step, combine to make driving pretty safe. The same with engine and fuel safety and that.
As my Grannies despite being Scottish never to the best of my recollection actually said? Many a mickle mak’s a muckle.
kodos wrote: no its not, a gasoline tanks is still more dangerous, as fire and to explode than a hydrogen tank
for hydrogen to explode, there need to be the right temperature and the right amount of oxygen
a hydrogen tank exploding looks like this:
What does it look like if it happens at an 80mph impact or 160mph impact (relative when head on from two 80mph vehicles) instead of falling over? The former is what you might see with an automobile collision.
If there's a head-on collision at 80 mph each, I doubt it's going to matter to what's left of anyone in either car whether the cars are powered by gas, hydrogen, or lithium ion batteries.
Jadenim wrote: The thing you have to remember is that if cars didn’t already exist there is no way they would be allowed on the roads as a new invention.
“We’ve designed this metal box to transport people from place to place. It will be capable of moving at twice the legal speed limit (four times in urban areas), with no restrictions other than what the operator chooses to do, its powered by highly flammable and/or explosive gasoline and emits a whole load of particulates and chemicals that cause severe respiratory problems (plus a bunch of CO2). Oh and anyone will be allowed to operate one for their entire life, following a single, basic and generic, training course when they are a teenager.”
“Get out.”
While a cute modern take on the subject, I do have to say this is wrong. Cars didn't just appear ex-nihilo, nor was what they offered a new thing. They were a new way to do something people were already doing.
Horse carriages, or just riding horses, and wagons good sir. Cars weren't a new thing, they were an upgrade on an old thing.
And the coming of cars actually is what saved our cities from the old chaotic mess that was street traffic back in the day. It forced us to come up with codified rules for street traffic, separating pedestrians and vehicles, making sure vehicles operate in designated lanes with right of ways. We didn't have much of that at all back with the old horse and buggies.
And as for pollution. Show anybody from the turn of the century how clean the air is today compared to back then and they won't believe car pollution could possibly be a problem. Cities at the time were universally living under palls of soot and smog that makes the worst day in modern LA look positively clear.
Apologies guys, I don’t think my point came across, it wasn’t an anti-car rant (although I’m a big supporter of better public transport and urban design*), it was just that you can’t compare new technologies such as hydrogen with the existing technology, because the barriers to entry are much, much higher now.
Essentially existing internal combustion vehicles have an unfair advantage as a legacy technology that has embedded itself over a century, but that when looked at in the cold light of day would not meet modern expectations around safety, sustainability etc. that new technologies have to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can make similar arguments about other things; railway stations for example. The only thing stopping me putting a body part in front of several hundred tonnes of metal going at 100mph is a little yellow line on the platform. And they only introduced that in the last couple of decades.
James May talked about this in a series he did a few years ago when he looked at stuff like flying cars, personal jet packs, etc. Even if you can get the technology working, the regulatory hurdles will just kill most ideas. At a fundamental level, most of our transport systems (and probably infrastructure) are essentially 19th century technologies, because they got embedded before our attitude to regulation changed.
Edit: * not that I’m suggesting anything stupid like “ban all personal vehicles”, just that there are better solutions in a lot of cases, if you invest in them.
New dangerous ways to transport yourself have been invented, they are often just super expensive and niche or situationally restricted enough that they aren't mainstream.
Just look at rocketships!
Lets face it the real barrier isn't legislation, its cost. The reason we don't have flying cars is that they cost a LOT more. They cost more to buy, more to run, more to train for to use. They also cost more to build infrastructure for since most people don't have a mansion with a runway at home and major road networks don't have runways on them either.
So you need very affordable, very cheap, easy to use equipment to break onto the market and there's just not the transport pressure there for a firm to have made it work.
You get the odd "rich toy" developed here and there because that's basically what they are. You also need a firm willing to push hard and spend years in the "rich toy" market to develop technology, manufacture and infrastructure to a point where there is a chance for uptake. Sometimes this relies on other technologies catching up and getting cheaper.
Look at VR. It's been around since the 90s, but its only now that its actually starting to carve our an actual viable mass-market to itself and growing. It took home computers getting more powerful; components coming down in price and a bunch of other things including firms wiling to invest and push it to make it happen.
And yet at the same time we have things like Mountain Rescue starting to look at seriously using jetpacks for rescue work.
We have Amazon wanting to do drone home delivery, which you can be sure if they can get it to work will continue to upscale it to larger and larger drones and packages being shipped around.
I don't think its legislation that stopped it all; but I will agree that legislation can slow down or restrict development; but the biggest barrier is having a pathway to a big enough market to make a big change.
I'm sure people argued similar about cars - a massive fundamental change in personal transport over horses and foot and train. It took ages and ages for cars to be affordable enough for mass market changes; the legislation sometimes ahead but limiting (flag walkers in front) and periods where it was way behind the faster uptake of cars.
Legislation can either get left behind and things change before laws are forced to adapt (see things like escooter rentals or Uber operating even though both are either illegal under some existing laws; or aren't covered specifically); or it can hold things back and slow them down.
In general it only stops things if its specifically setup against things. Otherwise if there's money to be made ...
And the coming of cars actually is what saved our cities from the old chaotic mess that was street traffic back in the day. It forced us to come up with codified rules for street traffic, separating pedestrians and vehicles, making sure vehicles operate in designated lanes with right of ways. We didn't have much of that at all back with the old horse and buggies.
Well, cars are far more dangerous than horse and carts, so it makes sense it wasn't needed prior. The same effect was already happening due to trains, which is why most of the elevated lines were built in US cities.
It had consequences too- rather than being grade separated like trains, cars took over public spaces that used to be built around people. This has had both positive and negative effects, and there is a rebalancing happening in much of the developed world where urban centres are being pedestrianised again with cars limited to the outer areas where they are more beneficial.
And as for pollution. Show anybody from the turn of the century how clean the air is today compared to back then and they won't believe car pollution could possibly be a problem. Cities at the time were universally living under palls of soot and smog that makes the worst day in modern LA look positively clear.
Car pollution used to have lead in it, which is a plausible theory for why violent crime used to be so much higher Visible pollution isn't necessarily worse for you than the hidden stuff.
Car pollution used to have lead in it, which is a plausible theory for why violent crime used to be so much higher Visible pollution isn't necessarily worse for you than the hidden stuff.
Depends. Visible pollution tends to kill you before the invisible stuff can kill you. You won't live long enough to develop cancer if you're inhaling coal dust every day of your life. Lead poisoning is also one of those hard to interpret issues, it doesn't actually kill you(at least not unless its at stupid high levels), it amplifies existing behaviors, and it was combined with a lot of other changing variables. Like simply more people living in more and more crowded cities at the same time as massed lead gasoline exposure. So was it the lead in the air, general pollution, or people being packed together, or a combination of it all together?
Remember that back in the 1800s cities actually had negative birth rates, mostly down to the pollution. People died faster than they were born and the population only kept steady because of the influx of peasants coming from the countryside looking for work.
Now that the absolutely worst pollution has been curbed in modern cities, we are now dealing with the longer term stuff that takes your whole life to kill you.
Being old enough to remember roads before Unleaded Petrol really kicked in? Leaded Petrol has a very specific exhaust smell.
I couldn’t describe it to you right now, because it’s been decades and my scent memory isn’t that good. But I could 100% tell you if a vehicle using leaded petrol drove past.
And being born in Edinburgh, there are still buildings there covered in soot from when the city really earned the nickname Auld Reekie.
Interesting. The bit about the time of day being required for the observations in particular, as a) it explains the discrepancy with the other studies but more importantly b) it would indicate a continuous process for the production of these chemicals.
Unfortunately, given that I’ve also heard that they’ve found active volcanoes on Venus, plus Venus’ generally high energy, active, atmosphere, I imagine that there’s an awful lot of geological and chemical processes that will need to be eliminated until you can say it’s a bio signature . As PBS SpaceTime is fond of saying “it’s never aliens, until it’s aliens.”
If, IF, it were shown to be extraterrestrial life, that would be very, very, exciting, because the chances of it being panspermia from Earth is very low, due to the extreme differences in environment and it would also open up a whole swathe of different potential places to look for life in the universe. In fact it could be very revealing in defining what life actually is and how it starts. Potentially much more useful than Mars or Europa, in fact.
Flinty wrote: Talking about about walking back, apparently there is a major Stonehenge stone that has now been traced to the north of Scotland, about 700km away.
Flinty wrote: Talking about about walking back, apparently there is a major Stonehenge stone that has now been traced to the north of Scotland, about 700km away.
Look, they were just having a few tins of Special Brew and it seemed like a good idea at the time…
In all seriousness, I’ve seen some stuff in the past about similarities between the various monuments in the Orkneys and Stonehenge and this seems to further the idea that these Neolithic sites are linked, which is wild given the distances and geography involved. Even today, getting to the very north of Scotland is a pain compared to most of the rest of Great Britain. Also the fact that you still have the Preseli blue stones from Wales as well suggests a degree of communication and common culture across the entire island. There’s going to have to be a fairly serious reexamination of our assumptions about the British society in the Stone Age.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For starters, the fact that you probably can talk about a British society.
If memory serves from my successful sojourn to Orkney a couple of years ago? It’s believed those who built the Stones of Stenness originated in Portugal, arrived in Orkney, then worked their way South, or at the very least their knack for stone arranging worked its way south.
Extra fun fact? The homes discovered at Skara Brae showed a remarkable similarity to traditional Orcadian homes in terms of build and general layout, which were occupied until the early 20th Century.
I guess when you’ve a limited choice of materials to work with? When it works, it works and there’s little impetus to depart from it.
Flinty wrote: Talking about about walking back, apparently there is a major Stonehenge stone that has now been traced to the north of Scotland, about 700km away.
Very interesting. The identified region in Scotland is coastal, so my money would be on transportation by boat most of the way to Stonehenge.
Clearly a key Pictish chieftain was needed for the key vote in the British legislature, and wouldn't support the Stonehenge bill unless they won some jobs for North East Pictland
In all seriousness, I’ve seen some stuff in the past about similarities between the various monuments in the Orkneys and Stonehenge and this seems to further the idea that these Neolithic sites are linked, which is wild given the distances and geography involved. Even today, getting to the very north of Scotland is a pain compared to most of the rest of Great Britain. Also the fact that you still have the Preseli blue stones from Wales as well suggests a degree of communication and common culture across the entire island. There’s going to have to be a fairly serious reexamination of our assumptions about the British society in the Stone Age.
The concept of primitive peoples migrating long distances and of trade lines that allow products to move vast distances in the ancient world is one of those areas where the literature is already there; but the public and media perception is still playing catch-up (as is common in a lot of sciences).
It's been ages since I last looked at any of it, but even over a decade ago the idea of ancient people moving and transporting goods over large regions is very well established. Let's not forget this isn't too far off when many peoples were nomadic in nature and if you look at nomadic tribes that survived in places like Africa, they would cover huge distances (or at least they used too before the land got carved up into countries with barriers and so forth).
I think its a shock to many because whilst we have insanely fast transport today, we also have a very sedentary mindset/lifestyle/culture that has been around for generations.
Yeah, travel was far more common in the past than people would think. Even if a person never left their "local area" in the stone age that would still have entailed a yearly migration somewhere. Especially before agriculture. You just can't stay in one area if you're not farming.
And the bronze age had trans-continental trade routes because you just can't get tin where you get copper. Most of the tin used in the middle east's big empires is believed to have originated in southern England and Brittany in France. And there were probably some bronze age empires/kingdoms in Europe, they just didn't leave any writing for us to find and the environment there is not as kind to artifacts as the middle east is.
Whilst all of that is true, transporting a 6 ton rock about 700km when there are much closer options available is both impressive and raises many questions as to why that rock in particular.
Haighus wrote: Whilst all of that is true, transporting a 6 ton rock about 700km when there are much closer options available is both impressive and raises many questions as to why that rock in particular.
We can make a lot of guesses, but chances are we might never know the actual reason itself.
It also might not have been a 700gm journey. The rock might have been used for religious or other purposes many times in different religious or similar structures. Perhaps they believed it had power or a unique specific shape that allowed a certain constellation to be read/used in the stars and such. So it made the trip in smaller steps to different sites and today only one site remains.
I was just perusing this thread and the last page seemed to leave the insistence that seperation of road traffic happened because of the rise of the motorcar.
This is inaccurate.
As far back as 1671 london buildings were installing bollards to seperate the pedestrian pavement from the buggies in the middle of the road.
I.E. Even when there were no regulations, the carriages and carts used the middle and the pedestrians walked alongside the buildings.
That got formally adoped in law in 1766 in the "Paving & Lighting Act" which stipulated that all pavements had to use a raised kerb for traffic seperation.
Then in 1769 Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot made the first steam-powered car capable of carrying passengers.
The Benz patent motorwagen was created in 1886.
I worked as an archaeologist for over 10 years so I suppose I should weigh into this. I know sometimes there can be nothing worse than an "expert" harping on about something My expertise is really the later Iron Age of the UK but there's a lot to talk about in prehistory in general.
I will preface this by saying Stonehenge is a bit naff. It's not the most important or impressive stone circle in the UK or Europe, the Orcadian stones and Irish tomb complexes are much more interesting (I'll get back to this in a bit). Suffice to say it is a culmination of earlier ritual sites that started at the far north of the British and Irish isles.
Stories like this are always interesting because I also used to research public interest in archaeology and how people interacted with it. Stonehenge is world famous and so always draws public interest and this story feeds an interesting narrative about the past.
It's important to understand that this is not exactly new news, it's more a bit of proof of long well evidenced theories.
The original stones were identified as coming from Wales in the 1920s, there was evidence of upland Scottish type objects, objects from the North East and West found during very early excavations. The stone in question was clearly not the other bluestone but was assumed that it had come from somewhere in Wales. What's interesting about this is that it does highlight the movement of people, something that has happened since time began. It's important to link this to modern views on immigration. It shows that throughout human history, we have taken parts of our community with us and moved across the landscape and made our mark wherever we go. So why is that important and what does it really show us now?
Stone circle building in the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic (a period of around 20,000+ years for reference) had a lot of similarities despite the span of time. It's difficult for people to fully process this length of time because our brains just don't like it. We see such change during our own lives and in that great span of time there will have been countless changes to people and communities that we can simply never truly see in the archaeological record.
This is a part of our history where communities of humans start to exist beyond familial ties. By the Mesolithic we see larger communities, housing complexes and serious interaction with the landscape. We have lots of evidence of trade networks and clear idealisation of the landscape or certain aspects of it. This is where stone circle building really takes off and why in essence that stone and this story does matter.
There is a mixture of transitory, pastoral and sedentary communities by the late Mesolithic and Neolithic, different people move through landscapes while others are beginning to settle and farm areas. Meeting places start to exist as communities trade and interact. Oral history, folklore and mythos start to appear. Stone circles become meeting places, ritual sites, possible religious areas but also trade centres. They are a mark on the landscape created by people wanting to live on past their fleeting lives. In this light they are really comparable with the art of cathedral building. Masters of the craft, those with knowledge helped to build cathedrals in other areas, workers came from all over to work on them. It's not too dissimilar to what happened with some of the larger stone circles.
Research done into other circles shows that often each stone was brought from a different geographic location. It's thought each community would bring a stone to add theirs to a greater whole. Often the stones are shaped and placed to reflect the landscape, mirroring hills and mountains in the distance.
As the nomadic lifestyle of the past starts to die off, it appears to become a more nostalgic time. The Age of Wandering as it were. Stone circles can be seen as an idealism of their past as the larger community centres start to appear. It's clear that identities exist and people want to proudly show them off. Other communities travel far and wide to join with the building works and add to it with their own local piece. It has almost a festival or pilgrimage nature to it.
So yes, although it seems strange that it came from so far, it was typical of the time. Most interesting to me at least is that this is a little spotlight into the past that shows a greater burgeoning humanity, how it interacts with itself and the land.
With archaeology there's the standing thing of if you can't work out why something was done - then it was for religious purposes.
I know that a lot of archaeologists don’t like the “ritual” tag (and with good reason, it’s just a bit…lazy), but I was thinking about it a few years ago and I think it would be useful to differentiate between “ritual” and “Ritual”. “ritual” (lowercase) objects don’t necessarily have particular significance, but just represent a local tradition. A great example from the modern Western world would be the neck tie. 300-years ago it was a functional part of clothing, like a belt, but with the development of modern fasteners, it is now an entirely superfluous ornamentation. And yet, we expect people to wear them in certain circumstances (job interviews, formal speeches, etc.), which to me means it is now a ritual object.
There was an interesting point raised on a Time Team, relating to Wooden Henges. And essentially, because wood tends to rot away entirely, leaving only post holes? We can’t say for certain such monuments weren’t further decorated.
Not necessarily painted (I think we have ways of detecting pigments applied to ancient stone, even when there’s no visible evidence?), but things like pennants and ribbons. In my head, I’m thinking Maypole type stuff, which just being in my head shouldn’t have any real weight put on it.
Further to what you were saying about links to scotland at the site already being postulated, is the stonehenge site material choice some kind of statement?
Im wondering if the wooden ones were intended to rot away, like a symbolic statement you might see in a modern art site?
I notice that the potential quarrying sites for the scottish and welsh stones could be seen as a "from the furthest point of that country" and ferrying the scottish stone from the orkneys would be one hell of a statement at that point.
I like the idea that it was a statement of British unity well ahead of their time.
