LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

    This is a good article. It is probably behind a paywall so I will quote several paragraphs:


    Why This Could Be a Critical Year for Electric Cars
    Booming in a depressed market, battery-powered vehicles are a plus for the climate but pose a big threat to carmakers and parts suppliers that are slow to…
    www.nytimes.com


    Why This Could Be a Critical Year for Electric Cars


    Booming in a depressed market, battery-powered vehicles are a plus for the climate but pose a big threat to carmakers and parts suppliers that are slow to change.


    Feb. 8, 2022, 3:00 a.m. ET


    Sales of cars powered solely by batteries surged in the United States, Europe and China last year, while deliveries of fossil fuel vehicles were stagnant. Demand for electric cars is so strong that manufacturers are requiring buyers to put down deposits months in advance. And some models are effectively sold out for the next two years.


    Battery-powered cars are having a breakthrough moment and will enter the mainstream this year as automakers begin selling electric versions of one of Americans’ favorite vehicle type: pickup trucks. Their arrival represents the biggest upheaval in the auto industry since Henry Ford introduced the Model T in 1908 and could have far-reaching consequences for factory workers, businesses and the environment. Tailpipe emissions are among the largest contributors to climate change.


    While electric vehicles still account for a small slice of the market — nearly 9 percent of the new cars sold last year worldwide were electric, up from 2.5 percent in 2019, according to the International Energy Agency — their rapid growth could make 2022 the year when the march of battery-powered cars became unstoppable, erasing any doubt that the internal combustion engine is lurching toward obsolescence.


    The proliferation of electric cars will improve air quality and help slow global warming. The air in Southern California is already a bit cleaner thanks to the popularity of electric vehicles there. And the boom is a rare piece of good news for President Biden, who has struggled to advance his climate agenda in Congress.


    The auto industry is on track to invest half a trillion dollars in the next five years to make the transition to electric vehicles, Wedbush Securities, an investment firm, estimates. That money will be spent to refit and build factories, train workers, write software, upgrade dealerships and more. Companies are planning more than a dozen new electric car and battery factories just in the United States. . . .

    Here is an earlier report linked to the one above:


    G.M. Will Sell Only Zero-Emission Vehicles by 2035 (Published 2021)
    The move, one of the most ambitious in the auto industry, is a piece of a broader plan by the company to become carbon neutral by 2040.
    www.nytimes.com

    G.M. Will Sell Only Zero-Emission Vehicles by 2035The move, one of the most ambitious in the auto industry, is a piece of a broader plan by the company to become carbon neutral by 2040.


    General Motors plans an electric Hummer pickup, with a high-end version due in showrooms this fall.


    By Neal E. Boudette and Coral Davenport


    Published Jan. 28, 2021 Updated Oct. 1, 2021


    The days of the internal combustion engine are numbered.


    General Motors said Thursday that it would phase out petroleum-powered cars and trucks and sell only vehicles that have zero tailpipe emissions by 2035, a seismic shift by one of the world’s largest automakers that makes billions of dollars today from gas-guzzling pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.


    The announcement is likely to put pressure on automakers around the world to make similar commitments. It could also embolden President Biden and other elected officials to push for even more aggressive policies to fight climate change. Leaders could point to G.M.’s decision as evidence that even big businesses have decided that it is time for the world to begin to transition away from fossil fuels that have powered the global economy for more than a century.


    G.M.’s move is sure to roil the auto industry, which, between car and parts makers, employed about one million people in the United States in 2019, more than any other manufacturing sector by far. It will also have huge ramifications for the oil and gas sector, whose fortunes are closely tied to the internal combustion engine.


    A rapid shift by the auto industry could lead to job losses and business failures in related areas. Electric cars don’t have transmissions or need oil changes, meaning conventional service stations will have to retool what they do. Electric vehicles also require fewer workers to make, putting traditional manufacturing jobs at risk. At the same time, the move to electric cars will spark a boom in areas like battery manufacturing, mining and charging stations. . . .

    So GM:


    Carbon is the only thing that matters? Environmentalists are in for a massive dystopian future if they stay on this course. It's bad to mine a mountaintop for coal but its ok to destroy 10,000 mountaintops for windmills for the same amount of energy?


    Zero emissions cars? lollll.


    The proper term should be shifted emissions. The mines to get all the rare earths, the fossil fueled trucks ripping apart the Earth to get at these resources, the chemicals used in mining, the eco-systems ruined in the process, the power plants producing the electricity, the wires to send it through the grid all conspire to produce ZERO emissions? what a joke. Delusional. This is not a solution to our problems. It's not even a temporary stopgap measure. Its a massive fraud on humanity.


    Trust me when I say that GM is not going to be the savior of the world.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Like it or not, but you have to, LENR? You have to do it now and right away...

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

    LENR done properly should solve all our energy problems but I agree GM will not solve all our problems. There is no such thing as a saviour in the cut and thrust of the business World. We need $$$$$$ put into LENR and link such systems to small, portable U235 fission reactors. :) :) :)

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Carbon is the only thing that matters? Environmentalists are in for a massive dystopian future if they stay on this course. It's bad to mine a mountaintop for coal but its ok to destroy 10,000 mountaintops for windmills for the same amount of energy?

    That is completely wrong.


    Wind turbines take less resources than combustion generators, when you factor in the coal and railroads (or pipelines) needed for the fuel. A railroad is used once during the life of a wind turbine, but continuously throughout the service life of a combustion generator, so you have locomotives, railroad track capacity, and manpower continuously in use the whole time. The tonnage of equipment for a wind farm with hundreds of turbines (a gigawatt of capacity) would be several trainloads of equipment. About the same amount of steel and concrete is needed for a combustion generator. After the combustion generator goes on line, the same tonnage in coal delivered every month for 50 years. (A railroad can be used to ship goods other than coal, but coal takes up around 25% of total railroad capacity.) Add to that the equipment, fuel and space taken up to coal mines.


    Wind turbines take much less concrete and other materials than hydroelectricity. They take much less surface area than solar, and less surface area than coal combustion when you factor in the space taken by railroads and mines. A 2 MW wind turbine takes up about as much space as a small house on the ground. On agricultural land you can grow crops or graze cows around a wind turbine.


    In the automotive sector, gas stations and fuel trucks take up a lot of space and consume a lot of energy. The electric car energy distribution system takes up no space. It is a small fraction of the existing electric power distribution system, used for a few hours a week per car. With rooftop solar it takes no space at all.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    The proper term should be shifted emissions. The mines to get all the rare earths, the fossil fueled trucks ripping apart the Earth to get at these resources, the chemicals used in mining, the eco-systems ruined in the process,

    Incorrect. Per passenger mile, electric cars use 3 to 4 times less energy. Much of the energy nowadays comes from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind or solar power, which do not cause global warming. The materials such are rare earths are not actually rare at all. The U.S. has enough to supply electric cars for thousands of years. Rare earths are not mined in the U.S. only because Chinese mines charge less. All of the materials in wind turbines and electric cars can be recycled.


    The damage to the ecosystem is far less than damage caused by coal mining, coal combustion, ash, or by global warming.

    From Carl Page...



    Dear Friends,

    The Anthropocene Institute is proud to be a contributor to a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom dated February 1, 2022 urging him to delay closure of California's remaining nuclear plant to comply with state laws on fighting global warming. Nearly 80 scientists and academics, including the former U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate Dr. Steven Chu, signed on to the letter urging that Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant stay open for the time being.

    Anthropocene Institute’s founder who is a signee notes, “Existing nuclear power can help us mitigate climate change. It’s the only carbon-free, scalable energy source we have now that’s available 24 hours a day. Nuclear plants also have no negative effects on air quality.”

    In the letter, the signatories also say, “Considering our climate crisis, closing the plant is not only irresponsible, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

    Isabelle Boemeke (also known as Isodope), a model and founder and executive director of Save Clean Energy, a nonprofit group that promotes the emissions benefits of nuclear power, organized the letter. The letter was covered by Reuters and the Times of San Diego.

    Overcoming objections


    People sometimes balk at nuclear power because of earthquakes. However, as the letter states, Diablo Canyon can withstand earthquakes larger than nearby faults are capable of triggering. It cited an assessment that PG&E sent in 2018 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission finding no significant seismic or tsunami hazards to the plant.

    Others object because of nuclear waste. Almost all countries with commercial nuclear power production are planning to isolate the waste byproduct of their nuclear fuel cycle in a deep geological repository. This technology fills a big hole in our nuclear future, one that is necessary for us to seriously address climate change.

    Rising public support


    As climate concerns have mounted, so has the call to keep open Diablo Canyon, which backers note is the state's top source of emissions-free power. Opinions about nuclear, too, have continued to shift as the realities of climate change intensify. For the fourth consecutive year in 2021, ecoAmerica conducted its American Climate Perspectives Survey, sponsored in part by Anthropocene Institute. The survey shows that 59 percent of Americans “totally support” existing nuclear energy and recognize that it produces around 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Toplines from the survey can be found here.

    A final thought


    It's time to get behind the development and deployment of small nuclear reactors (SMRs) made by companies such as Terrestrial Energy, NuScale, and Oklo. They’re designed with modular technology on a production line, with small fuel loadings, passive safety features, and the capacity to work in tandem with fluctuating renewable sources.

    But as a first step, we must preserve existing nuclear power generation and invest in and adopt “new” nuclear power. The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant provides safe, cost-effective, reliable, and clean power while ensuring the grid has sufficient capacity to operate reliably. It makes no sense to close California’s largest generator, which produces more power annually than five Hoover Dams.

    -Anthropocene Institute
    Read Letter

    This is complicated. It is difficult for a non-expert (me, or any journalist) to judge.


    The article says they will not need the nuke to run full time. That's extremely uneconomical. Nukes cost a lot to keep open. I suppose the cost of building it has long been paid for, but just keeping it open is also expensive. If you do not run them 24/7 you are losing money. You cannot actually turn them off easily. It takes days. You can turn off a gas fired generator quickly, which is why it works well with wind and solar.


    The nuclear plant they are building in Georgia is insanely expensive. It could never compete with solar. QUOTE:


    "Once estimated to cost $14 billion, the price tag for two new reactors at Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle property has climbed past $30 billion, and both units will be more than six years late in coming online, the institute reported after combing through public records including testimony at a Georgia Public Service Commission hearing in December."


    In Georgia, Bloated Costs Take Over a Nuclear Power Plant and a Fight Looms Over Who Pays - Inside Climate News
    Ballooning cost overruns and construction delays at Georgia Power Co.’s  Vogtle nuclear project threaten to cost the state’s electricity consumers  billions of…
    insideclimatenews.org


    They have 2302 MWe of capacity. That's $13,000 per kilowatt of capacity. Here is the EIA's estimate of the cost of capacity in 2013:


    Table 1. Power company generator cost per kilowatt
    Type of Generator Cost per kilowatt
    Natural gas, GE LM6000 $1,376 *
    Natural gas (advanced) $2,095
    Onshore wind power $2,213
    Coal (cheapest) $2,934
    Hydroelectricity $2,936
    Photovoltaic $4,183
    Nuclear $5,530
    Coal (advanced) $6,599
    * This estimate from Parsons Brinckerhoff New Zealand Ltd.; [2] all others from Energy
    Information Agency (EIA.gov)


    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source


    This is the so called "overnight cost" which takes into account the capacity factor. Here is a more recent estimate:


    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf


    Wind is now $1,846. Nukes $6,034, but you see from Georgia that is a huge underestimate of actual costs for new capacity.


    I believe this part means the capacity factor is taken into account:


    "For wind and solar PV, in particular, the cost favorability of the lowest-cost regions compound the underlying variability in regional cost and create a significant
    differential between the unadjusted costs and the capacity-weighted average national costs as observed from recent market experience."



    There is no way anyone will build another nuke in the U.S. given these cost overruns. Granted, that does not mean it is a good idea to close down existing nukes in the U.S., or Germany. In Japan I expect they will all be closed as soon as possible, because the public is afraid of them. For good reason!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Wind is now $1,846. Nukes $6,034, but you see from Georgia that is a huge underestimate of actual costs for new capacity.

    That's not to suggest you can apply the $13,000 per kilowatt. The "overnight cost" is nowhere near as high as that. The initial cost of wind turbines is $1.3 million per megawatt, which is $1300/kW but given the capacity factor it is more like $3,900/kW. However, you have to factor in the cost of fuel and the cost of maintenance to compute the overnight cost. Also, the cost of borrowing money, decommissioning, and so on. The cost of fuel is zero with wind. It is low with nukes. Wind turbine maintenance cost is lower than combustion or nukes. Anyway, it is complicated.


    Those numbers in the EIA tables are the best estimates of industry experts and government people. I am sure they are good, but as I said, they do not take into account the cost overruns in Georgia, which are a nightmare.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They have 2302 MWe of capacity. That's $13,000 per kilowatt of capacity.

    Just a tiny bit more than solar in Dubai that is at 2$/kW.....


    And... 15..20% of the energy the plant will produce in 40 years has already been used for its building/production... Further about 14% of the energy produced goes into Uranium fuel production...Mostly carbon energy... The decommission also will cost at least 4 years of the produced energy...


    So what are nukes for: Ask the US military! They did promote it, for face lifting after grilling some 200k Japanese people and to get more nukes...

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.