LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from rubycarat

There is a large elderly population in Florida US that is going to suffer when their AC goes out.

No problem - under water they will no not need any AC....

Quote from Dr Richard

The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Average price of electromobile in my country 35.000 USD, gasoline car 10.000 USD. For price difference, i.e. 25.000 USD you could run 300.000 km with gasoline car - but this is also distance, after which you must change battery (10.000 USD) of electric car and you still have to pay 15.000 USD for electricity = 60.000 USD total. So that buying car + 300.000 km combo will cost you nearly twice as much at the case of electric car.

Electric cars need no 2 years maintenance no 120'000km transmission belt exchange etc.. The breaks are electric. This saves you at least 10'000$ in a cars live. You can also find a fuel car for 5000'$ the question is how long in will last...ut ether are also small E-cars...

And as said before repeat your primary school math to do the proper fuel calculation with an average electricity price at about 20 cents kWh (Switzerland) and then explain why the battery costs 10'000 and the E-car should cost 25'000 more than a F-car? May be you never had a car... And F-car is much more complex to build and needs far more robots than an E-car.

Only in Saudi Arabia fuel is free and in the US it contains no taxes (in most states). Here we pay 1.5$/l and the average car still needs 7l/100km because (below) average minded people need SUV's or pickups for any trip.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Sorry, but the (unsubsidized) cost is the very basis of load of life environment.

No, it isn't in this case. It is a reflection of the number of units manufactured. With mass production, the more you make, the cheaper they are. Also, it is a reflection of the history of the product. Gasoline cars have been manufactured since 1908, in greater numbers than any other machine in history. So people know how to make them, and they are cheap. Modern electric cars have only been mass produced since around 2010.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The paying higher cost means, you should pay someone's raw sources, energy for their mining, energy for keeping his human force alive and well being etc.

Again this bullshit about mining. Do you think anyone subsidizes the cost of lithium, cobalt, and manganese? Or do you imagine an electric car battery costs $60,000?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

But electric cars have very same problem with raw sources: lithium, cobalt, neodymium, which will get depleted even faster.

Are you familiar with the word "recycling"? This resembles your assertion that the owners of a wind turbine do not make enough money to scrap it. Hint: it does not cost money to recycle an electric generator. You make money doing that. They pay you for it. Even when you dispose of a beat-up, non-working 20-year-old automobile, as I did recently, they send a tow truck and pay you $110 scrap value.

You are in love with fantasy versions of thermodynamics, economics and engineering. They seem to be inspired by the kind of ignorant, right-wing nonsense Trump spouts about coal versus wind energy. You distort the facts, and you ignore them, and you are unwilling to do simple analyses that anyone familiar with heat engines and electricity can do in high school. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is at an end. Go ahead and pile on more nonsense and distortion if you feel like it. You make yourself look like a fool.

Quote from Wyttenbach

then explain why the battery costs 10'000 and the E

A replacement battery from Nissan costs $5,499, retail, quantity 1, FOB Atlanta. You can get them a cheaper than that. I am sure Nissan pays less.

Quote from Dr Richard

Depends on who you believe maybe you are being naive?

And what was wrong with my numbers?

Math do not lie 😉

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This cost will reflect carbon footprint of your car.

absolutely not.

Cost and CO2 footprint does not correlate.

As with wind and solar you disregard the economic fact of reduced unit costs as manufacturing of units increase.

Anyhow:

Tesla will shortly announce a million mile battery, and probably at cost competing with IC cars.

In a few years electric car costs less than IC, have short charging times and longer distance between charge.

Lower OPEX and Similar CAPEX makes the choice Easy.

In Norway an electric Renault Zoe and a gasoline Renault Clio cost the same, 22000 USD.

The range of the Zoe is not bad at 400km, but it takes 30 min to charge 150 km distance, which is too slow still. Mostly a town car yet then.

But batteries improve fast now.

Solar and wind are important! But then elements the Sun's carona and the Earth/Moon's clouds, crust and oceans contain much more energetic phenomina. We don't know for sure, but I posit these other plasma phenomena are more than nuclear fission/fusion or valence electron chemistry. The gap among the range of reaction emission energies (from 100s of eV to 10s of keV) per interaction could be more important than either to our technical future. Would be an interesting spot to research deeper into strange chemistry and twice the practicality of ITER if workable out and about. Amazing if the copious funds could be reallocated, vindicating dense hydrogen power, dual/multi-nuclei atoms and pico-chemistry. These plus solar, wind and advanced MSRs would cover the whole table. Wholistically, denser metal hydride reactions would cross most if not all the wanted performance points of LENR. May not last as long theoretically but is still in the range of ~1k times as powerful as cumbustion.

Quote from interested observer

There are some amazing examples of skewed logic here. Zephir spends all his time quoting statistics that have virtually nothing to do with the points he is trying to make while somehow thinking they do. Ruby is skeptical about renewables because their ability to solve our problems is “based on conjecture “ but is convinced that LENR is what will solve our problems. That is a stunning example of inconsistent thinking.

Anyway, Zephir is in favor of overunity. I’m in favor of divine intervention. But, as a practical matter, I don’t plan to sit around and wait for it to happen.

Whats your opinion on picochemistry, deep reactions without nuclear disruption? I am in favor of renewables, but what Ruby is saying is extremely logical and grounded based on the statistics. If something more akin to atomic-like, hyper dense, safe chemistry rises to the mainstream consciousness,7 I say we put the millions and billions in that.

Quote from rubycarat

I do not know about your calculation, I would have to check that. Assuming your are correct, we'd still need to generate an extra amount due to the losses. This is just for the US in 2015 where we see about a 60% loss, but it's the same situation for losses everywhere that there is a grid in use.

I say don't give on these alternatives, but don't claim they are anything more than a stop-gap. And at that point I say, I don't want a temporary solution as there is just no time left for profit-taking on temporary solutions. Let's get to the real long-term solution of atomic power.

The claim was made that the so-called renewable technologies can power our civilization. At this time, they do not.

Whether or not they will in the future remains to be seen. All these pages of debate pose a scenario that requires a host of new technologies, new efficiencies, new grid elements, new transportation, and there is the rub.

I will continue to press for the long-term solution to our planet - new nuclear designs that are small, distributed, and energy-dense.
This is the technology that can power all the changes we will need.

Let's put our resources to that solution!

https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33…-consumption-sankey-1.png

Display More

What's funny is that the room temperatures superconductors, superstrong light materials and superdense energy storage solutions that would make renewables work 100% now can be produced theoretically through pico-chemistry like what R. Mills and others seem to be up to. Interestingly the tech nessasary for the gatway may be more amazing than the cautiously planned destination of tenuous environmental energy harvesting.

Quote from oystla

Tesla will shortly announce a million mile battery, and probably at cost competing with IC cars.

That is to say, a battery that can be recharged many times, to go 1 million miles. Not a battery that goes 1 million miles per charge! You confused me for a moment.

The ones they have now go about 200,000 miles before wearing out, I think.

Nissan Leaf batteries tend to lose a lot of range in the first few years. They supposedly plateau out after that. The battery warranty is 8 years or 100,000 miles.

Quote from interested observer

“You are in love with fantasy versions of thermodynamics, economics and engineering. They seem to be inspired by the kind of ignorant, right-wing nonsense Trump spouts about coal versus wind energy. You distort the facts, and you ignore them, and you are unwilling to do simple analyses that anyone familiar with heat engines and electricity can do in high school. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is at an end. Go ahead and pile on more nonsense and distortion if you feel like it. You make yourself look like a fool.”

Sums up Zephir quite accurately. Another denizen of the fact-free zone.

Much of what he says on overunity and scalar waves is obviously false, but don't write of every single thing he posts. There is a post on vacuum capacitors, storing dense aggregates of electrons, that I find interesting. It could be applied to many things. Of course check basic electrical knowledge and thermodynamic principles first! When tried to use it to justify vacuum fluctuation based energy devices I just stuck to potentials I saw that don't require logical fallacies. My comment nore the proposed tech ventured to claim 100% efficiency.

The world’s astonishing dependence on fossil fuels hasn’t changed in 40 years You really don't doubt about your religion too often? So far developed world makes its environment cleaner into account of less developed countries with zero net result..

Quote from Zephir_AWT

So far developed world makes its environment cleaner into account of less developed countries with zero net result..

Ahem . . . I said I would not comment, but I can't resist. Do you not understand that if the developed countries had not made their environments cleaner, the entire world would be dirtier and worse off? Are you suggesting that developed countries shouldn't do anything to save the lives of their own citizens, because India does not do enough? Should we also not bother to have safe, clean water and sewage treatment, because they don't have it? Are you in favor of imposing the worst conditions in the world on everyone, or do you think maybe we should aim higher than impoverished countries do?

What you say makes no sense.

Pollution does not stop at the border. In particular, air pollution from China appears in the skies over Japan every year. If the Japanese had not reduced their own air pollution, it would be much worse when you add in particulate matter from China.

Fortunately, the Chinese are now cleaning up coal smoke and increasing alternative energy and nukes.

Pollution control and alternative energy developed in first world countries becomes cheaper and is exported to third world countries. Someone has to start. The first countries to implement it always pay the most. It benefits everyone in the end. So do things like energy-saving LED lights. They have greatly reduced pollution and ill health, especially in the third world where they often replace kerosene lighting. They are hundreds of times cheaper per lumen. See:

http://www.vleindia.com/about.php?id=NA==

Quote from Zephir_AWT

And they're still get powered by ~ 86% from fossil fuels

86% from fossil fuels???

once more Zephyr..it depends where you are ....perhaps you are in Queensland,au... ..

In China the figure is less than 75%, New Zealand 17%... and going down quickly by the year,,

China is driving the electric bus..and the rest of the world is getting on..

lenr-forum.com/attachment/12542/

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The world’s astonishing dependence on fossil fuels hasn’t changed in 40 years

The largest global challenge on CLEAN energy for all is the global population growth AND general increase in global wealth.

Both increases global energy consumption.

And presently we are just in the infancy of electrification of global transport.

This result in still increase in Liquid fuels for ships, cars, trucks, busses, planes.

This is the Main reason for fossil fuel increase.

SOLUTION:

1.Continue electrify transport sector

2. Continue expand the electric grid with renewables.

As shown in below figures both wind and solar is starting to matter. In 2000 they where a joke, not now.

Planet of the Humans was removed from YouTube on May 23 after English environmental photographer Toby Smith filed a copyright infringement complaint, saying that director Jeff Gibbs used a few seconds of his footage in the film without getting permission to do so.

Infringement of copyright or "intellectual property rights" was never so easy evasion for censorship as today. See also:

• YouTube’s updated terms of service states ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
• YouTube star TheFatRat is highly ‘frustrated’ with the platform’s copyright claim system TheFatRat, whose real name is Christian Buettner, uploaded a song called “The Calling” on March 31, 2016. Nine months later, a musician named Andres Galvis had his remix of “The Calling” uploaded, and as YouTuber Zen World reported, a Colombian music company called Ramjets then placed a copyright claim on Buettner’s original version. That halted Buettner’s revenue—he makes $3,000 month off “The Calling”—and it led him into a behind-the-scenes fight to dispute the claim and to try to win back his own song.

Christian Büttner aka TheFatRat : How my video with 47 million views was stolen on ignorant YouTube. You can sign a petition

So I can imagine, how widespread Büttner's problem actually is on YouTube.

Siemens has announced a 14 MW offshore wind turbine, the largest in the world. It is gigantic! It beats GE which has a 12 MW unit.

https://www.renewableenergywor…lds-largest-wind-turbine/

Since it is offshore, I suppose the capacity factor is higher than 30%. Probably around 40%. Maybe even 50%. So it is effectively ~5.6 MW. 161 of them would produce as much as an average U.S. nuke (~900 MW taking into account the nuke capacity factor).

https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-wind-outlook-2019

One nuke produces roughly ~0.2% of the electricity in the U.S. So, 80,500 of these babies could generate all the electricity in the U.S. As a practical matter, that is impossible, given the distribution of wind. But the number is not impossibly high. The cost, mass of materials, space taken up, and so on for 80,500 towers would not be more disruptive than conventional generators. We are not talking about millions of towers. That was the prospect in the 1970s when modern wind power began.

A combination of wind towers, solar, nukes, and gigantic batteries to smooth out intermittency could produce all of the electricity in the U.S. with no carbon emissions and practically no pollution, other than solid waste from material that cannot be recycled. I do not like nukes, but they are better than coal plants. I think they would still be needed if we are going to retire coal and gradually retire most natural gas. This would not raise the cost of electricity much. It might reduce it in the long term, as the technology matures. I think there is still plenty of room to reduce the cost of wind and solar. Nukes are a lost cause. They will never get cheaper.

Not accidentally Germany and Denmark, i.e, the countries with highest portion of "cheapest" energy have highest prices of energy. Denmark's price of electricity highest in Europe: 0.41 Euro per Kwh. Denmark's tax payers aren't idiots and they already realized that renewable electricity makes them poor - but German lobby of wind plant manufacturers is stronger. And in which country tax payers have actual control over their government and its expenses?

Sorry @Jed Rothwell I didn't realize you are such an expert on this. Of course electric cars are much more efficient and easier to maintain..But where can I find a cheap one?

Quote from Dr Richard

Sorry @Jed Rothwell I didn't realize you are such an expert on this. Of course electric cars are much more efficient and easier to maintain..But where can I find a cheap one?

Prices will come down.

That is the normal economic law of increased manufacturing and increased Competition.

And in a few years they will be cheaper than gasoline cars.

Quote from JedRothwell

Siemens has announced a 14 MW offshore wind turbine, the largest in the world. It is gigantic! It beats GE which has a 12 MW unit.

https://www.renewableenergywor…lds-largest-wind-turbine/

Since it is offshore, I suppose the capacity factor is higher than 30%. Probably around 40%. Maybe even 50%.

The record holder in 2019 was Hywind Scotland at 55% cap. Factor. And they are only 6MW turbines.

At 12MW they probably will reach 60% cap factor. GE states 60% on their 12MW Haliade X.

Offshore there are more stable wind resources, and the higher they are....