LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • How big of a boulder of platinum ect is too big to flip into Earth orbit from beyond Mars?

  • Onshore

    Wind towers crumpled after Iowa wind farm suffers rare direct hit from powerful twister


    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A wind farm in southwest Iowa suffered a direct hit from a powerful tornado that crumpled five of the massive, power-producing towers, including one that burst into flames. But experts say fortunately such incidents are rare.


    Video of the direct hit on the wind farm near Greenfield, Iowa, showed frightening images of the violent twister ripping through the countryside, uprooting trees, damaging buildings and sending dirt and debris high into the air.


    Wind towers crumpled after Iowa wind farm suffers rare direct hit from powerful twister
    A wind farm in southwest Iowa suffered a direct hit from a powerful tornado that crumpled five of the massive, power-producing towers.
    www.renewableenergyworld.com

  • How big of a boulder of platinum ect is too big to flip into Earth orbit from beyond Mars?

    I have read various books about this. I think the plan is to start with small boulders. Even a small one has a fantastic amount of valuable metal. Decades or hundreds of years later larger ones can be cut apart and sent in chunks.


    With sufficient propellant, you could send a gigantic one, the size of a mountain. But it would be dangerous if it was slightly off track and it crashed into the earth.


    This ties in with projects to identify and then move dangerous asteroids that might strike the earth. Such projects are already underway. They are well worth funding. If the same technology could be used to mine asteroids that would be fantastic. The effort would pay for itself a million times over, while at the same time preventing catastrophe.


    There is any amount of propellant in the solar system. A large fraction of the mass is ice.


  • This ties in with projects to identify and then move dangerous asteroids that might strike the earth. Such projects are already underway. They are well worth funding. If the same technology could be used to mine asteroids that would be fantastic. The effort would pay for itself a million times over, while at the same time preventing catastrophe.

    That is another important reason why this is not a boondoggle. On the contrary, it might help prevent the worst catastrophe since the Chicxulub asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. The technology is similar. You have to identify all large asteroids, determine their mass and composition, and plot their orbits. NASA and others are doing this already. As they do it, they might identify asteroids that have valuable metals that may be small enough to move now.


    They are now developing methods of change the orbits slowly, a little bit, over a long time. For example by landing on the asteroids and then throwing rocks off of them as propellent. I do not think this could ever be a method of moving them all the way to an earth orbit, but it would be the first step in that process. I suppose decades later they might send much larger robotic rockets with tons of water taken from the rings of Saturn or someplace. That could be used to launch the asteroids into an earth intercept orbit.


    Anyway, this "Boondoggle" article is silly. The objections in it make no technical or economic sense. Such as:


    "Alternatively, the miners could hold back ore already delivered to Earth and sell only in relatively small quantities so as not to overwhelm the market. But that would add costs for storage and seriously delay any payback to investors who presumably would have already waited decades for a payout."


    Why would anyone do that? They would deliver as much as they could, as soon as they could. The same way the Transcontinental Railroad began moving passengers and freight as soon as possible. (This began even before the east and west lines connected. The Central Pacific ran profitable traffic in California before crossing the Sierras.) The first railroad lines could only carry a limited amount of traffic, but they were far better than wagon trains or ships going around South America. The rail lines and locomotives were improved and traffic increased over time. They never "held back" freight or artificially limited carrying capacity. They carried as much as they could. No doubt, asteroid mining would work the same way, carrying as much as they can. A little at first, and then larger amounts as the technology improves.


    Along similar lines, in the 1980s hard disk manufacturers wanted to artificially limit hard disk capacity, and delay improvements. Industry leaders were moaning about "profitless expansion of capacity," meaning they kept making larger disks, but the price per megabyte kept falling so they did not make proportionally larger profits. If they had had a monopoly they might have held back improvements. IBM used to do that with CPU and RAM capacity in the 1970s. But you could not do that in the 1980s with hard disks because there were several companies competing for the business. In the future, people mining asteroids for platinum group metals may have a monopoly on that technology. But they will still be competing with conventional mining on earth, so they will not be in a position to hold back, and deliver only small quantities. They will deliver as much as they can, as quickly as they can, within the limits of the technology and investment capital available. As more and more platinum group metals are delivered, the uses of them and the overall market will expand, the same way the uses, demand and market expanded as hard disk capacity increased in the 1980s.


    There is always some upper limit to demand. No one today needs 100 TB of hard disk capacity for ordinary home applications. A few billionaires may want a collection of 50 Rolls Royce automobiles but most of us have no place to put that many cars, and no desire to maintain so many cars. The author of this article is correct that eventually $10 quintillion of raw materials will clobber demand and reduce profits to near zero, or even below zero. That is what happened with many railroads around 1890 because of overbuilding, over-investment, and too many parallel lines on the same routes. But in the decades before that, railroads were fantastically profitable, and many remained profitable long after that, to the present day.


  • CATL Shenxing Battery Strikes Fear Into The Hearts Of Governments & Automakers - CleanTechnica
    The CATL Shenxing PLUS battery is a big step forward for the EV revolution but a significant risk to traditional manufacturers.
    cleantechnica.com


    CATL just announced it has already improved on the Shenxing LFP battery it introduced last year. According to the company, its latest battery, called Shenxing PLUS, can charge at 4C, add 600 kilometers of range in just 10 minutes using a DC fast charger, and power an electric car for up to 1000 kilometers on a full charge. BOOM! The EV revolution just got disrupted and nothing will ever be the same again. Here is a video from CATL that explains the Shenxing PLUS battery in greater detail.


    External Content youtu.be
    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.

  • CATL just announced i

    NO. this is old cheese most western mafia press ignored it...


    CATL announces solid-state battery production and 600-mile LFP pack that can power EVs for a month
    The Shenxing Plus battery adds 372 miles in 10 minutes of charging and is built with affordable LFP cell chemistry. CATL also budged on solid-state batteries…
    www.notebookcheck.net


    At least 1 month ago!!! I mentionend it once as it is not yet ready.


    Previously, it expressed doubts that this can start before 2030, but now it says that it will be able to produce its own solid-state batteries en masse in 2027, striving for 1% penetration rate.

    As always, CATL warned that its solid-state batteries won't be cheap, but its chief scientist Wu Kai pegged 500 Wh/kg energy density as an achievable goal.

    This is almost double the energy density of current EV batteries, and CATL said that it has formed a development team of 1,000 engineers who will build on a decade of its own solid-state battery research.

    Mr Kai pegged the current state of production readiness for its solid-state battery tech as 4/9, citing manufacturing costs. He, however, predicts that by the time CATL gets around to it in 2027, the level will already be 8/9, meaning that it won't be able to offer solid-state batteries only for affordable EVs.

    For mass market electric vehicle produced in higher quantities, however, CATL just detailed a new battery that is the first LFP pack to allow more than a 600-mile range on a charge. The previous iteration of its Shenxing battery was rated for 400+ miles of range, as well as fast charging.


  • Dirty truth about SUV emissions

    If sports utility vehicles (SUVs) were a country, they would be the world’s fifth-largest emitter of CO2. An analysis by the International Energy Agency found that these large automobiles account for more than a quarter of the increased oil demand over 2022 and 2023. During that time period, global oil consumption directly related to SUVs rose by over 600,000 barrels per day, largely nullifying the efficiency improvements in other types of passenger cars.

    Bloomberg | 2 min read

  • During that time period, global oil consumption directly related to SUVs rose by over 600,000 barrels per day, largely nullifying the efficiency improvements in other types of passenger cars.

    Air pollution (NOx)is 7..14x above the allowed values because they are allowed to switch off the fertilizer supply at lower T what means almost anytime in northern countries.

    Second reason: Because car manufacturers in Europe did bribe the state/EU agencies to implement a fake air pollution test.

  • I found this interesting thread on a local forum. It highlights the unexpected pitfalls when installing rooftop solar panels. Each is a quote is from a different person:


    "We have 5500 Watts on our house and reap about $1,000 a year in PV. I had a rude awakening this year when pricing a new roof. The price to remove and re-install the panels is $5,000. Sales people don’t tell you this up front. I would be hesitant to do this again with the knowledge that this future expense is coming up."


    "Plus the insurance won’t cover for roof damage in a hurricane because the wind got up under the panels and caused damage to the structure - so many things they don’t mention during their sales pitch"


    "I had an estimate for mine to be removed and reinstalled, I would also need new brackets/frames as mine are corroded and can't be unbolted and re-installed. They ballparked $8000 for me!!! Wish I had a time machine... My recommendation, don't EVER put solar on a roof in the Southeast, where hurricanes are common and roofs need to be replaced regularly! Possible exception is if you get a metal roof. Regardless, I keep hearing rumors of insurance companies not being willing to insure your house if you have solar on the roof! Not sure which companies, I have USAA and (knock on wood) OK so far... But if I could go back in time I would talk myself out of doing this."


    "I recently had the same “rude awakening” when having to replace my old roof. I had 4.5 kw of panels installed 12 years ago, 3.5 kw of which are on my garage roof and 1 kw on the house roof. The bill for removal and reinstall of the 1 kw array and my rooftop passive solar water heater (did not replace the garage roof) was going to be around $5,000. Way too expensive and they would not guarantee the system’s performance nor longevity since it is “ used” equipment. I elected to simply have the equipment on my house roof removed and not reinstalled."


    "My homeowners insurance also would drop my coverage if had solar panels installed— I have USAA"


    "Nor do they tell you there is maintenance to be done, keeping them clean, and resell may be difficult, as some insurance won't cover the roof or the riders are very expensive. Many things involved with solar that you have to find out on your own, either through experience or digging into specifics surrounding having solar."

  • I insist maintenance cost for keeping them clean is absolutely not considered by no one. It's a real nuisance, here in the desert, you have to clean them at least once a week, if you don't, your panels not only perform poorly, they also get damaged.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I have 3 kw of panels self-installed 20 years ago. I did a few coats of roll-on "50-yr" urethane roof coating before installing the racks. Being 1/2 mile from the ocean, I used all stainless steel hardware.

    If you want it to last, that's the minimum quality needed. So far so good...

  • I insist maintenance cost for keeping them clean is absolutely not considered by no one. It's a real nuisance, here in the desert, you have to clean them at least once a week, if you don't, your panels not only perform poorly, they also get damaged.

    You Chileans are tougher than the average US citizen. Here, few are willing to venture onto their roof. :)

  • I have 3 kw of panels self-installed 20 years ago. I did a few coats of roll-on "50-yr" urethane roof coating before installing the racks. Being 1/2 mile from the ocean, I used all stainless steel hardware.

    If you want it to last, that's the minimum quality needed. So far so good...

    Good on you! but as I said to Curbina: how many people on the planet could do what you did, or are willing to? Few, very few, actually. Most of us depend on servicemen trained in the tech to take care of things like that. And in my experience, when it comes to green energy, they are never around when you need them.

  • I just wanted to point out that the technology exists and is readily available to make roof-mounted PV systems durable. Yes, it costs more, but it's clearly better to pay up front. As the previous posts showed, when the roof needs replacement an existing PV system is often not worth reinstalling

  • "We have 5500 Watts on our house and reap about $1,000 a year in PV. I had a rude awakening this year when pricing a new roof. The price to remove and re-install the panels is $5,000. Sales people don’t tell you this up front. I would be hesitant to do this again with the knowledge that this future expense is coming up."

    Do you really believe that such extra dumb customers do exists or is it just counter propaganda???

  • You're dealing with American citizens so extra dumb is at the top of the list

    Have forgotten about it. What is the average Americans todays world ranking in education? > 40 ? Behind Egypt or Malaria...?


    I like the tornado people. Next wood hose please..! OK a WWII bunker is not so nice...


    May be we should not joke here. 2 Years a go we had the first tiny tornado in Zürich, that did draw a line over a wooden hill, did tear out 13 pillars of the electric current line of the hill train line and finally shrubbed most trees in the Altstetten Quarter in Zürich and also farther uphill close to the national tv station...

    My car had maintenance day and I lost only 1 hour... But the next one will be much bigger.

  • You should not install PV on an old roof! I would say you should install them when you get a new roof.

    May be US quality (30 years thinking in average) is at odd with modern panels.


    E.g. Mayer Burger (22% as SUNPower) gives you a 30 year warranty for > 90% production. This means that these panels will be good for 50 years at least.


    There are some basic rules:

    - Roof should last > 30 years

    - In roof panels produce 20% less during heat phase

    - On roof need quality corrosion prone mountings with just enough distance for behind air circulation.


    The outside end rows need special holders in stormy regions. But a storm cannot enter a thin slit of e.g. 3..5cm. Swiss panels work with hail up to 3.5cm. But hail size is growing world wide. So check the hail maps from the weather service of the agriculture department.

    Desert locations could be a problem as quartz grains can leave scarves (on cheap glas) , that then can be populated by algae or filled with sticky dirt. SO may be a wind shield should be used

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.