Energy Storage: The Latest in Supercapacitors
When modern-age electric vehicles first became “a thing” about 10 years ago, supercapacitors were a frequent topic of discussion, due to their value in delivering large amounts of power—far more energy per unit than batteries could provide. As it turns out, however, lithium-ion batteries have come to offer acceptable power density, and thus this initial conversation has gone dormant.
And it appeared that this technology might remain of little interest indefinitely, insofar as capacitors have historically been considered inappropriate for most other energy storage needs, because the amount of energy they can store is limited because energy storage is a function of surface area, and there seemed to be no cost-effective way of expanding that area.
Enter graphene, the infinitesimally thin (one atom thick) form of graphite, which now looks as though it may become feasible for the first time, and presented in this episode of PBS’s NOVA.
What an interesting time to be alive. We have all this political garbage that provides a headwind for renewable energy, but we have a range of technologies that are driving up the effectiveness and lowering the costs of generating, transmitting, and storing clean energy. Which of these huge vectors will eventually win out?
I’m not sure, but as long as there remains a question, I suppose I’ll still have a job writing about the issues, and helping to build businesses around them.
Although supercapacitors, aka ultracapacitors, have their place, their energy density is far lower than that of batteries. Also, unlike batteries, their voltage varies in direct proportion to the energy transferred in or out; that significantly complicates their use. Even so, in situations where large mounts of energy must be transferred at a high rate, they can be useful although the electronics necessary to deal with the varying voltage complicates things.
Batteries tend to lose efficiency when energy must be rapidly transferred whereas supercapacitors tend to maintain their efficiency even at high transfer rates. Therefore, in electric cars, it might be possible to improve efficiency by combining supercapacitors with batteries to maintain efficiency during heavy braking and acceleration although that would complicate the electronics because the electronics would have to deal with the radically varying voltage of the supercapacitors. That may be the reason that they are not used in electric cars.
Whether supercapacitors would be useful for the grid is questionable. But even if they are not useful for the grid they do have other uses.
Frank perhaps what excites the energy storage field about super caps is that, because the potential energy is held in a static charge rather than chemistry, they tend to have extreme long useful lives.
As you mentioned their high power density is very useful in situations demanding a rapid transfer of energy such as regenerative braking.
In addition any hybrid requires energy storage with more focus on power density than energy density as the energy required for increased range is supplied by the hybrid petrol engine/fuel cell/solar panel.
Starter batteries for petrol engines also need a higher power density and they have been successfully replaced with ultracaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3x_kYq3mHM It is interesting the video discusses voltage drop because there are no power electronics to stabilize the voltage. It shows that some equipment will accept a range of voltage. An item like this could be used for a start/stop system for ice vehicles.
For a full EV ultra-caps have the advantage of being lighter than batteries. Although this is not presently enough to replace EV batteries there are some interesting developments with graphene aerogel.
Breath,
Generally an engine starts very quickly so very little energy is required to start it, especially if the starter spins it very fast. Thus the emf drop of the supercapacitor used to start an engine would not ordinarily be a problem. Of course if the engine failed to start quickly the emf drop would become a problem.
One would think that hybrid cars would be an ideal application for supercapacitors since their primary function would be to recover braking power and get the car up to speed again while the purpose of the engine would be to maintain speed. Presumably there is some reason that Toyauto did not choose to use them for the Prius.
Frank, the ultracaps contained sufficient energy to start the engine 6 more times without being recharged. Even at just above 10 v the engine was easily able to start.
In another development there are now 24v Ultra cap booster packs designed to start large truck engines. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150731-skelesm.html Incorporating such a device would allow truck drivers to turn engines off while going to eat lunch in the winter… Somehow such systems seem to work even with these slower starting engines.
Craig,
We are certainly living in an exciting new age of rapidly developing technology.
Graphene is certainly an exciting product with almost unlimited potential in so many industries. I’ve been a fan of the product (and investor) since having the honour of meeting Kostya Novoselov 12 years ago.
Not all new technology becomes commercially viable, while other technologies become quickly superseded, such is the pace of change. Some are just too complicated and suit only the needs or aspirations of a few. Some of these technologies will find profitable niche or specialist applications, while others just become redundant, stillborn or curiosities.
In the future it will become increasingly important to keep in focus the economics aspects of new technologies.
We are just (hopefully) coming to the end of a phase where new technologies, no matter how impractical, were supported by huge amounts of taxpayer/consumer and private finding. The era of support for projects based on ideological or wishful thinking, is beginning to ebb.
It’s only natural once the period of passion, enthusiasm and nativity begins to be replaced by objective reality and fiscal responsibility, for a sense of disappointment and disillusionment to take place among enthusiasts.
I wholeheartedly agree, your future is assured, and will become increasingly important ! Clean technology might lose the same political/ideological drama of a “crusade”, but that will be replaced by the more satisfying experience of seeing substantial realistic technologies being implemented.
While I don’t agree with his style, Trump and his administration represent the dawn of a new era.
A new phase is beginning where all the hard work of pioneers is bearing fruit. Companies and innovators are entering the same phase of industrialization as Tesla, while R&D is also becoming better organized, objective and focused.
This will be a time for progressive conservatives, (not “progressive” in the US sense). The excesses of the past must be curtailed as everyone, scientists, advocates, industrialists, politicians and the media etc, must take stock of themselves and admit their own errors and excesses.
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-intentioned folk, have become so addicted to criticizing their opponents that mediation and cooperation have become only a distant memory.
Constant reform and reassessment is absolutely essential, or how else are errors and mistakes to be identified, corrected and avoided ?
Reform and reassessment can’t take place unless all the parties are willing to admit errors. This can’t take place in an atmosphere of bitter recrimination and fanaticism.
Marcopolo,
I do not understand how you can see Trumpet as not being far more negative than positive. Here is a letter which I send elsewhere regarding Trumpet:
*****
U.S. President Trump has stated that global warming is a myth invented by the Chinese to undermine American industry. In actual fact, a google search on “global warming history” will find many articles which explain the science behind global warming and how the phenomenon was predicted more than 100 years ago. Global warming is probably the greatest threat to civilization that the world has ever faced.
Just recently, Trump’s order to deport illegal immigrants was temporarily suspended by the courts. Before that happened, a mother, who had been brought to the U.S. by her parents when she was only 14 years old, was deported to Mexico. Her husband and children are U.S. citizens who cannot be deported and the family was broken up. For more information, do a google search on “mother deported”.
There have also been thousands of lawsuits against Trump, some of which are still pending. He recently agreed to pay US$25 million to settle a lawsuit regarding Trump University. For more information, do a google search on “trump lawsuits”.
It is impossible to predict accurately what the outcome of the Trump presidency will be. The situation is entirely too interesting.
*******
Just as a stopped clock is right twice per day, Trump has done a few things right. However, he is basically a disaster. The sooner a legal way can be found to get him out of office the better.
If you want to see where my letter was published, check out this link:
http://letters.fijitimes.com/LettersToTheEditor/389102
Marco while I appreciate your fiscally conservative views I wonder at your claim that all sorts of technology has been funded simply because it is technology.
Perhaps I must missed the “huge” government support of magnetic motors and perpetual motion machines that are quite easy to find on the web. On the other hand it is quite easy to find support for a “bridge to nowhere” as part of corruption and pork barrel politics.
Perhaps there are some conservatives who therefore attack “newness” ie technology when it is simply disguised corruption. While I don’t think either conservatives or liberals have a corner on that market, in the US, Republican political contributions by big oil have outpaced those given to the Democratic party and this has seemed to have some influence upon party platform choices.
Money seems to be more of a corrupting force in politics relative to some imagined rush to embrace any new technology that presents itself. There are presently efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics but eliminating it seems doubtful.
Frank,
I fear you will be disappointed. The 45th US President may not be the sort of President you and I would like to be in office, but reality can’t simply be ignored.
He is President and may represent a whole new constituency of voters who by-pass older media outlets. The level of unrelenting ridicule, derision and outrage against a President fulfilling his campaign pledges, is unprecedented.
This goes far beyond mere legitimate opposition, it displays a refusal by one section of the American body politic to accept a President and Congress the right to govern.
The US system is not designed for this type of disputation.
Executive Presidencies require a certain degree of bi-partisan co-operation to function. The opposition can’t simply frustrate the process of governance in matters such as appointments of Presidential officials because the don’t like the candidates politics, or because the appointee is committed to carry out the policies of the President.
The opposition must accept the election result and allow the government to function. They can’t operate as a defacto government, the US system doesn’t have that flexibility.
The US President has checks and balances. For instance, he must get his budget and any significant legislation through Congress. He must also obey the Constitution, remain within the legal definition of sanity, while committing no “High crimes and misdemeanors” serious enough to merit impeachment.
Apart from those restrictions, the President is entitled to carry out his agenda in a lawful manner.
Courts can’t create legislation nor rule upon the wisdom of political policies. The media and opposition will pay price for waging a relentless barrage of personally vindictive and blatantly obstructionist invective.
At some point the Democrat opposition and “progressive” media must decide what’s more important, damaging Trump, or irrevocably damaging the institutions of US governance and the peoples faith in those institutions.
I have no real desire to defend Trump, (although I’m delighted his election is showing up the weaknesses in the “Executive Republic” model for governments. Since his election, support for Australian Constitutional Monarchy has increased dramatically !),.. but in reply to your three points.
1)I respect your view’s on Global Warming, however, that’s not the point. Donald Trump’s opinion’s were well known prior to the election and he was still elected. For the next four years he’s entitled to carry out his election promises. (just as you have the right to lawfully and peacefully protest).
2) Once elected President, Trump is not only entitled, but obliged to implement his immigration policy. Such policies will always contain the risk of unfortunate consequences. In the case you mention, it seems odd that the mother in question hadn’t bothered to apply for for US citizenship.
3)Donald Trump business career was basically that of a developer and entrepreneur. As such he will inevitably become involved in controversy and even law suits. The projects and businesses he promotes contain a higher than usual element of risk (also higher gains) Failures, are simply regarded as a collateral cost of doing business. (that includes lawsuits).
You may not approve of this type of business activity or his methods, but there’s nothing secret,hidden or illegal about his activities, and despite the widest possible exposure he was still became President.
Frank, you approve of Donald Trump (nor do I) but you must get used to the fact that he’s President ! Refusal to do so, goes beyond reasonable political opposition, it’s a rejection of the US system and institutions of governance.
To my mind that’s the beginning of a dangerous mindset. “Not respecting the rules”, invariably becomes justification for breaking the rules. Once that occurs, it gives others permission to not respect the rules either. The result is what happened in Fifi.
I’m happy to concur that Trump isn’t best suited for the office of President, but that’s just my opinion.
It’s unfortunate, because controversies arsing from Trump’s personality will cloud and distract from the ability for the US to institute necessary reforms and reassessments.
Marco, you wrote:
“The level of unrelenting ridicule, derision and outrage against a President fulfilling his campaign pledges, is unprecedented.
“This goes far beyond mere legitimate opposition, it displays a refusal by one section of the American body politic to accept a President and Congress the right to govern.”
I see it somewhat differently. Whether the level of ridicule is actually unprecedented I don’t know and I doubt that you know either. It may be unprecedented in the last 70 or so years, but I suspect that someone who knows American history exceedingly thoroughly would be able to find similar levels of ridicule by going back far enough. More important, though, it is NOT illegitimate ridicule etc.; most of it is more than deserved.
Do you actually think that a man who is qualified to be president would have founded a fake university and bilked naïve people out of money they could not afford to lose? Do you really think that a man qualified to be president would assert that global warming is a ploy by the Chinese to undermine American industry? Do you also believe that anyone qualified to be president would have supported the lie that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not qualified to be president? Obviously if Trumpet really believed that Obama was not a born U.S. citizen he could have checked the birth records in Hawaii, but Trumpet has a long record of not being much concerned with the truth.
It seems to me that there are enough problems right now in Oz for you to deal with without criticizing those of us who have good reason to be alarmed by having an unqualified president in the U.S. One Nation is now receiving considerable support. Do you believe that its support means that it is really qualified to play a major rôle in Australian government? Did you object when Pauline Hansen was disendorsed after being duly elected? And that is not the only serious problem in Oz.
Hi Frank,
In reply to your questions, “Do you think….”.
Sadly, the answer is yes ! I may not like it. but I must accept that the only thing that qualifies a US President to be President, is the ability to get elected !
(By the way, I think any American citizen should have the right to stand for office, regardless of origin of birth).
I agree with your questioning of my statement regarding ” unprecedented”, I forgot to add “in my lifetime”.
Some of the criticize of early Presidents, was pretty vitriolic, but that was in a pre-TV era.
Currently, I’m in the UK and will be for another month before returning to Australia. (the weather here in the UK is unbelievably foul).
Pauline Hanson and One Nation have toned down their rhetoric, but are still pretty repulsive creatures.
They are products of a bizarre proportional electoral system that allows candidates with relatively tiny support bases to win a few upper-house seats.
They are, and remain, pests in the body politic.
Neither One Nation, nor Pauline Hanson is a member of the government, nor has any role in government.
Just to correct you,I applauded when Pauline Hanson was disendorsed, but that was prior to her election in the seat of Oxley, which she then won as an independent. (she served her term, but wasn’t re-elected).
The behavior of a US President has repercussions for the entire Western World, especially US allies.
At some stage opponents of Trump must realize that endless repetitious invective is counter-productive, harming US institutions more than the man himself.
Can’t you see that many who don’t support Trump, are also growing alienated by the delays preventing Presidential appointments? This is in sharp contrast to the way in which Obama appointees were passed quickly through the endorsement process.
I really believe it’s time throughout the Western World for everyone to stop being distracted by how bad others are and start to reassess our own errors.
Marco,
You wrote, “This is in sharp contrast to the way in which Obama appointees were passed quickly through the endorsement process.”.
Not so with his appointee for the Supreme Court. The Republicans refused even to interview him.
Breath,
I can’t see where I claimed ” all sorts of technology has been funded simply because it is technology ” ? You are correct, it doesn’t make sense.
My point was that we have just gone through a “Clean Tech’ boom. The initiative was originally motivated as a response to high oil prices and perceived scarcity, allied to clean air policies.
Most of the development of “clean(er) technologies was enabled by the vast expansion of computer and electronic capacity.
At some point, “clean tech” became inextricably entwined ideological/political policies. Governments of all persuasions poured taxpayer funding into projects, often without adequate due diligence.
Private enterprise was just as irresponsible with the consequence that an orgy of funding for “green” projects occurred, with a large proportion lacking any realistic assessment.
Although a lot of funding was wasted, (Better Place was only a little more than a perpetual motion machine) the result was of a boom in both government and private funding did stimulate R&D and produced many valuable products and advances in technology.
In my opinion, now is the time to reassess and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of what has occurred objectively.
From such an assessment, which must be free of political/ideological influence, we can move forward more clearly and focus on developing the most promising of the new technologies.
As for money and politics.
Most politics arise from economic factors. It’s only natural for money and politics to go hand in hand, since a large number of political arguments are about money.
The influence of “Big Oil” , is a bit of a myth, or President Obama would not have won two terms ! Hilary Clinton outspent Donald Trump 20-1 ! Trump had virtually no large corporate backing. (also Ethanol would have ceased to exist).
In the US oil companies are huge employers, stabilize the US retirement and superannuation industries, and are the largest taxpayers. Naturally, US governments tend to listen to such powerful economic stakeholders.
On the other hand, their are also lot’s of other lobbyists, all vying for the ear of government. The Renewable Fuels Association easily outspends the oil lobby.
Representative government is about achieving a balance of interests in the political dynamic. When you start to exclude any group, it unbalance the order leading to instability, corruption and dissension.
You may wish to exclude the influence of Oil companies, another may wish to exclude organized labour, and so it goes on…
Marco, you have raised so many interesting points in your recent posts that I can’t hope to practically review them all. So then just a few points.
In the business world when a company is handling the investments of stockholders what is the percentage of good vs bad decisions? I think of this when I see criticism like yours that governments have made “bad” decisions with taxpayer money. Some of that we may have to attribute to human limitations. To try and improve on that percentage we put systems in place like checks and balances, group decision making, review, yet we must continue to operate in a sea of human frailties of mostly private motivations.
Political rejection of a standing president is not a recent phenomona. Rather than an exception it seems to be the rule. As recently as the last president, Obama’s policies were reject by the right many of which simply because they came in under his term. Congress refusing to have hearings on a Supreme court vacancy for so long is unprecedented. Many refused to accept even the legitimacy of the presidency of Baby Bush. Clinton was so hated for his populist appeal that he was hounded for years before being impeached. Bush senior had only one term. Regan, although hailed as the second coming by the right was tolerated by the left and suffered a debilitating assassination attempt that may have affected his reasoning from that time. Carter was another one term president that was hated for his down home populist appeal. This nuclear engineer could have taken the country in a very different direction if accepted.
Then I will jump over a few notorious examples back to the assassination of Kennedy which is now largely accepted to have been a conspiracy by private groups of individuals who refused to accept the direction the president was taking the country. Some go so far as to characterize it as the coup which pointed to the place we are today. You might say that the assassination of the president in 1963 was an attempt to silence a voice that lead to “unbalance the order leading to instability, corruption and dissension:” your words that describe conditions from that time.
And you are correct that much further back we have the election of Lincoln which was enough to divide the country. The country was even founded on the rejection of British rules. Perhaps part of what you miss in American politics is a reverence for an aristocracy which although present was also rejected by the American experiment. We might say that the aristocracy represents the continuity, the rules and with their rejection so goes the reverence for rules that seems to inspire you.
While I make no claim that it is a “better” system than what is present in the balance of the former British empire it is different.
Breath,
You might like this example of a poor decision made by a corporation. It was a waste of millions of dollars and was the result of extreme incompetence.
In 1978 I was hired by NCR and moved from Minneapolis to San Diego to work on the Modular Lodging project. It was to be software to handle accounting for guest systems, i.e., hotels and motels. In addition to handling reservations, it was to handle the dining room, banquets, etc. etc.
Upon beginning work in April 1978, I quickly found that the proposed hardware platform had never been tested. No design work for the software had been done, yet NCR was rapidly hiring a team to work on the system. Three different languages were to be used; I ended up using all three myself, i.e., INTEL 8080 assembler, Pascal, and COBOL with the application being in COBOL. Before it was even possible to test anything, many pages of COBOL application code were written and even rewritten as specifications changed. They at least should have designed the screen formats and data bases before hiring so many people, but they didn’t. The project never met even one deadline. The first manager resigned and a few months later, the second manager designed. They hired more people to speed up the project not realizing that the basic problem was a failure to do the design work before beginning the coding. After about SIX YEARS, the project was canceled after the staff had increased to about 40 people. It was a total waste. Of course the annual report to shareholders never covered the disaster and probably very few ever learned about it.
Certainly that is not typical of the way large corporations are run, but neither is it rare. I’ve also seen other disasters which could have easily been prevented by better planning and following widely recommendations and procedures for managing large projects.
Here is more evidence of poor management, this time by AT&T. In 1962, years before I got my degree, I was hired by AT&T and worked for them for one year before I found another job. I would have left much sooner except that I feared that quitting so soon would not look good on my employment record.
In that department at AT&T, new employees were hazed. In addition to being frustrating and annoying, it greatly reduced work efficiency. The employee who was hired before me had asked one of his tormenters outside for a fight. All this went on in complete view of the managers who could not avoid seeing what was happening, yet they never did anything about it.
Twice during the year I was required to take a one month training course which included AT&T employees from other parts of the country. What we learned was totally irrelevant to the equipment we had in Minneapolis. For example, we spent considerable time learning how, from the office, to determine exactly where faults were on open wire, yet in the Minneapolis area there was no open wire. We also learned about an antiquated vacuum tube carrier system but we had none in the area. About 90% of the training was wasted effort.
When an employee was listening in on a “private” long distance conversation and it was telephone sex, he’d call it to the attention of others and several employees would be listening in. Management was well aware of this, but did nothing. Once a magazine sales woman was using a WATTS line to sell magazines. Because of her odd way of speaking, someone connected her line to a speaker system so everyone on the floor could hear. Again, management knew about this since they also could hear it, but they did nothing.
Some companies which are assumed to be well-run are not. Probably the public would be shocked to learn how poorly run some companies are.
Frank, anyone who has had corporate experience and even many independents working with them has similar horror stories of waste in business. Most think it is only in their business as few have a wide view of the business world.
So when I hear some hail business as a model of efficiency that should be the yardstick for government I wonder at the mythical world of the speaker.
Business has an obligation to serve its stockholders. Government has an obligation to serve its constituents. And both must deal with the individual tendency for self service.
Breath,
Thank you for your interesting observations. I have only a couple of points arising from your comments that I feel may be helpful to clarify, and I’ll try to do so in order of your reply.
1)Your points are very valid, corporate executives also make their fair share of poor decisions. Not all government programs fail, many prove of great value.
I guess the main difference is that stock holders voluntarily accepted an element of risk, in return for gain, while taxpayers have no choice ! In addition, Corporate executive should not invest for ideological/political reasons, while governments often knowingly support and continue to support, failed enterprises solely to support a ideological/political agenda.
I do not subscribe to the Kennedy conspiracy theory, in reality most heavily guarded political figure are assassinated by unlikely odd balls who ‘get lucky’. The US Secret Service and FBI foils literally dozens of plots each year.
You are incorrect when you refer to me having a “reverence for an aristocracy”. Constitutional Monarchy is a very differently evolved form of governance than is evoked by the term “aristocracy”. ( Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy, but Japan has no ranks of aristocrats).
Constitutional Monarchies are an evolved form of government, allowing a an elected representative parliamentary to hold executive and administrative power, with the Constitutional Monarch serving as the Constitutional Head of State and Guardian of the Constitution.
Constitutional Monarchies only work in nations with long and traditional respect for the stability provided by an independent hereditary office of Sovereign. It’s not possible to superimpose such a system on a nation in a nation without that shared history.
Marco, I was using the term “aristocracy” as a euphemism for “acceptance of the rules” which you clearly have favored. It is understandable that coming from such a system you did not appreciate the subtlety.
Regarding the Kennedy assassination, although you might choose to hold the minority opinion that does not change the fact that the majority believe in a conspiracy. That is not a conspiracy it is a poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx Regardless of whether it was one individual or a faction it represents perhaps the most vocal kind of dissent and a choice away from accepting the status quo which was the point of the few paragraphs. Even though I quoted your words to bring your conclusion from that dissent to the present day, you seemed to have missed the point in your distraction and digression.
While I might differ to your opinion regarding acceptance of institutions in British systems in general, US history is replete with protest, dissent and non acceptance of the “winner,” especially in presidential politics. In part this may be because relative to a Euro-view of the world we tend to see everything as impermanent. It is reflected in construction, politics and very often business and social interaction. To some extent, for better or worse, we have traded social and institutional stability and discipline for fluidity, creativity, and personal freedom.
We shouldn’t be surprised at protest in the US but rather, note the lack of it for long periods.
Breath,
You have an unique interpretation of English. Perhaps that’s the origin of our confusion.
To me, ” Aristocracy” is defined as;
1) “people of noble birth holding hereditary titles and offices.
2) a form of government in which power is held by the nobility.
3) a state in which governing power is held by the nobility.
While a euphemism is;
1)a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
One of the great strengths of US society is the adherence to a strong Constitution of which the American people are rightly very proud.
In contrast, the UK doesn’t actually have a ‘formal constitution’.
The hallmark of the “Westminster System” is flexibility while remaining stable. Ministers of state can be replaced or appointed without lengthy process, even Prime Ministers can be changed without a change in government.
Ministers of State are accountable on a daily basis, not only to their party, cabinet and constituents, but all members of parliament, including the opposition.
Stability in the Westminster System relies upon intangibles like custom,tradition, a Head of State with only reserve powers, and direct accountability to Parliament.
In response to your comment on Kennedy, it’s interesting to not that although opinion poles show 60% of Americans think a conspiracy ‘may’ be involved, the overwhelming number of those polled couldn’t suggest any persons or organizations involved.
Polls also reveal 11% of Americans believe it’s a possibility that Elvis is still alive !
For a society to remain stable and public life secure, the people must agree to adhere to certain basic rules or structures. Society can’t function without structure.
Even dissent must be accommodated within certain rules or restrictions, or the result is anarchy and violent strife.
Marco… Yes, yes, keep going, and in literature and history what is it that the aristocracy, especially the British Aristocracy give to themselves with some pride? A sense of order, ie following the rules, in contrast to the rabble, the commoners. When Alexis De Tocqueville visited the US and from that visit wrote to inform Europe of the American experiment much of his writing concerned the lack of an aristocracy to provide guidance to the masses.
Good Lord, the conversation is about rules. You are quibbling about a definition when the context if not historical reference should tell you what it is all about… that is if you were not tied to the “rules” of denotative definition. And so it is an example on two levels. You seem to be struggling with both.
Someone might suggest that your comments regarding protest against the presidency suggested a certain historical naivete. If this could be embarrassing then a euphemism might be appropriate. But here I might have characterized the the usage as as “euphemistic.”
It appears that too many people do not understand the importance of and reasons for democratic governments.
When I lived in Fiji, following a military coup, I wrote an article about democratic governments; it was published in the Fiji Times. I received requests for permission to reprint it elsewhere. The article spread to a few websites. Because the majority of people in Fiji attach great importance to religion, I included Biblical references; I might not have done so if I had written the article for another audience.
Here is a link to the article; I think that some of the posters here may benefit from it, especially posters who seem to favor a hereditary aristocracy:
http://www.fijihosting.com/pcgov/docs_o/eggers_democracy.htm
Frank I don’t know anyone who in today’s world would support autocracy. It seems that ship has sailed. However understanding the historical context can be valuable.
It seems you have made this post previously but this is the first time I have looked at the article. It has a perspective but seems to leave out two considerations. First was the original desire for a King. You give plenty of examples of failed states but don’t discuss the motivation to be ruled.
The second and perhaps a clue to the first is the example of the family as a benevolent dictatorship. The “family” as a social unit seems locked into our DNA but after that the fiction grows with the size of the social unit. Jared Diamond in “Collapse…” suggests one example of a benevolent dictatorship in modern history. But even when we do have such examples and such rare individuals who consider the welfare of the entire state they tend to be assassinated by those who want to prioritize their own interests. This is a rather powerful disincentive to finding the “right people.” An outsider might conclude that there is such corruption in the world that people are simply not ready for such a government. And so we presently are experimenting with Democracies and the fiction of “free” markets.
Frank,
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a modern Constitutional Monarchy and ‘ancien régimes” .
Australia,New Zealand,Canada, Japan and many others are Constitutional Monarchies, but without accompanying hereditary aristocracy. Each of these nations is a stable, modern, representative democracy.
I’m a bit doubtful of my own influence on modern Fijian history since both Sitiveni Rabuka and Frank Bainimarama both attended my lectures on political science and constitutional law during Staff officer training !
Breath,
British Aristocracy …., a sense of order ? You must be speaking of a different Britain ! Perhaps because British Peers have never been very aristocratic !
A more chaotic, eccentric, group of individuals it would be hard to meet outside a lunatic asylum, that the hereditary members of the old, unreformed House of Lords. (the barmiest were the Bishops).
Believe me, after quick meeting with a few British hereditary peers, you would quickly change your perspective 🙂 !
Marco what you say is valuable but shallow without historical and literary context.
Breath,
The history of the British peerage,(a good percentage of whose descendants were my school-mates), is an astonishing tableau of pretty barmy incompetents, reinforced by a lot of newly rich middle class who purchased their titles.
Take John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich (inventor of the sandwich and father of 23 illegitimate children) he reveled in the criticism of his career ” Seldom has any man held so many offices and accomplished so little “!
They don’t get less obedient to the “rules”, than the current *0year old Marquis of Bath,who delights in maintaining 74 defacto wives on his country estate!
Many tomes have been written about the oddities of the British Peers, especially the more eccentric and profligate.