LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • Let us check that. PV cells (even silicon ones, you are ignoring the much lighter organic ones that I mentioned) are heavy only because of the necessary structurally stiff carrier.

    Regardless, the mass of PVs is far greater than the mass of cold fusion generators, for the reasons I gave above. Even if the PVs weighed nothing, the mass (and cost) of the per capita portion of the power distribution network alone would exceed that of cold fusion. That, and other reasons, are why cold fusion will be hundreds of times cheaper than any other source. It is not just that cold fusion energy costs nothing. Wind and solar energy also cost nothing, but cold fusion will be far cheaper than they are, because of the equipment costs, as I explained in my book.


    They can be added to roofing tiles and in that form do not greatly increase the mass. Performance does not degrade a great deal after 10-15 years. Here is the data: http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/.

    Ah, they have improved since I last read about them. 25 years is on par with many consumer appliances. But, as I said, combustion thermoelectric devices last 50 years, and so will cold fusion devices.


    (Commercial HVAC equipment lasts a long time. But it has its limits. My office HVAC dates from the 1970s and it is falling to pieces. The landlord is paying a fortune to replace it. He had to hire giant cranes to lift the new units to the roof. Twice! They are so heavy, and they were installed so badly, the roof is now leaking all over the place, although not on me, thank goodness.)


    Currently PV embodied energy is < 10% of payback.

    Your source says 2.5 years in the U.K., with a product life of 25 years. That's not very good compared to other conventional sources, such as wind turbines or gas turbines.


    That is the embodied energy from manufacturing. I wonder how much energy is needed to recycle them. It probably depends on the type.


    Rating energy production devices by payback is silly. That would be equivalent to saying that an LENR device that generated 10X the electricity out it required to run it (or, say 40X the heat out) was somehow much worse than one with a higher out/in ratio.

    Rating cold fusion devices by payback is silly, because they will reduce the cost of energy to zero, and because their embodied energy will be hundreds of times smaller than conventional generators. For other devices it is not silly. If the payback for PV is 10% of lifetime production, and for wind it is 1% (approximately true), this should be taken into account when comparing lifetime performance. You have to reduce the PV estimate by 9% to make a fair comparison to wind. 9% is significant.

  • They can be added to roofing tiles and in that form do not greatly increase the mass.

    I think you missed the point of my comparison. To generate all of your electricity with PV, you would need a much larger area than your roof. Your roofing tiles only cover the roof. You would need two three other roofs worth of PVs elsewhere, plus the distribution grid, plus a large capacity storage system for night and cloudy weather.


    Even if you cover your entire roof with PV, it is not enough to generate all the electricity you need, and it does not generate any of the space heating, transportation or other energy you need. Whereas cold fusion will generate all of that with a ~500 lb co-generator.


    Of course very few people would even try to get all power from PV. The technology does not need to supply all electricity to be beneficial and cost effective. You could get all your electricity in the desert or in Hawaii but not the U.K. or Atlanta. However, you need a power grid or large local storage.


    Incorporating PV in roof tiles seems like a bad idea to me. Roof tiles usually last longer than 25 years. If PVs are incorporated in tiles (shingles) and they only last 25 years, you would either have to replace the roof sooner than normal, or lose most of your PV power before the roof needs to be replaced. This reminds me of all-in-one CRT-based computers in the 1980s. The CRT wore out and stopped working long before the computer did. When IBM introduced the PC, they separated the computer from the keyboard and screen. It seemed a little odd to me at the time but I soon saw the wisdom of it.

  • My understanding is that method works for long distance high power lines, but not for stepped down local network of 10 to 50 miles. Maybe I have that wrong.


    Of course these high voltage DC lines are extremely dangerous. They would kill you instantly. Safety it not one of their advantages. DC is safer than AC at the power levels used at home. It is safer for various reasons. I read that the main reason is that it is less likely to stop the heart.

    • Official Post

    The fact remains that AC is much more dangerous than DC. AC is necessary because electricity must be transmitted over long distances. However, as Arthur Clarke pointed out, if cold fusion generators become available, DC will be a much better choice. At the same power levels it is far less likely to electrocute a person.

    In fact I've been taught the revers during my electrotechnic (high power electronic) courses.

    at same voltage, DC kills for sure while AC gives a chance to escape. DC make you stuck to the wire you touch.

    50V DC is deadly more than 100V AC.

    anyway beside a danger ratio of that amount , what count is current, which depends on voltage and conductivity (for humans, wetness of skin).


    the fear came from high tension that AC allows with transformers. Today with IGBT and alike, you can have good control on DC to produce Very high voltage DC (useful to transfer power accross channels or from offshore power plants).


    It is funny how myth stays despite practice.

  • Alainco,


    Don’t really think it matters.


    The existing infrastructure is set up to generate/distribute/transform high ac voltage, (to limit i^2 R losses), to low, (usable), ac voltage.


    However and whatever power is generated by LENR will eventually be inverted to ac

    So existing infrastructure can still be utilized.


    I can envision no realistic circumstances where existing infrastructure will not be used, so distributed voltage will be ac.


    Now,

    If you are building a new lab in Antarctica, then maybe you could go dc, but not in existing urban environments.


    I have a few new data centers designs that are considering going to dc for internal white space distribution, we will see how it goes.


  • This is a bit off topic, but I have to address this error, as someone with knowledge in the field.


    50 VDC is nowhere near as dangerous to human health as 120VAC, so I have to confront this statement as being simply wrong. Most countries consider DC voltage max of between 40 to 60 volts to be "safe" meaning that there is a negligible risk for electrocution. The telephone system in the US is still based on 40VDC, and that decision was made because it was considered a safe level of voltage (over 130 years ago). The tradeoff of voltage vs. safety is that higher voltage allows for cheaper, thinner wire but at decreasing safety. History has shown that this was a wise choice. 40VDC is very safe.


    On the other hand, in the US in 2016, there were 325 deaths due to household electricity (120V RMS), and 60 were specifically identified to be from a household appliance.


    No deaths reported from 40VDC or less (there are no statistics for 50VDC since it is not a commonly used voltage).


    AC is far more dangerous to humans for two primary reasons. First, AC is far more likely to cause heart fibrillation (spasmodic heart beat), because it causes neuromuscular firing 60 times a second, (where DC causes neuromuscular firing once). While DC voltage can cause fibrillation, It is estimated that it takes approximately 10 times higher DC voltage achieve the same risk as (RMS) AC Voltage (or about 7X peak VAC). Second is that US household 120VAC is actually 170VAC peak. This matters to human life because peak current (corresponding to peak voltage) is what causes fibrillation. To convert 120 VAC (RMS or "Root Mean Square"), multiply by the square root of 2 (approx. 1.4). RMS AC Voltage values are used because they conveniently provide an apples for apples comparison with DC for calculating average power. However, as mentioned, in the human heart, peak current is what kills, not average power. US household voltage is 170V peak-to-peak. However, even 100VAC peak-to-peak can easily stop your heart.


    So in this case, it is not a myth that AC is more lethal than DC. This is well documented and not in the least bit controversial. In fact the notion that 50V DC is more deadly than 100VAC is factually false, and should not be perpetuated, even as a myth.


    Also, electrocution almost always requires two conditions: First, a current path across the heart. For example holding a wire in each hand, or holding a wire in your left hand while standing or lying in a wet surface or tub in order to have high conductivity to ground (holding a wire in your right hand and standing in a puddle will give you a real jolt, but it is not likely to kill you). And secondly, AC current! This is because of fibrillation, and also the fact that equivalently lethal 400VDC or higher sources are almost nowhere to be found other than as high voltage lines, which are, of course, lethal in either AC or DC form).


    For these reasons, in practice, electrocution by DC Voltage is almost unheard of.

    • Official Post

    What you say looks true, but that is not what theyr taught me as high power electronic engineer...

    The point is that AC gives you a chance to escape 50 times a seconde (bounce, flee, react). the danger with DC is you get stuck forever...

    Maybe is it a wrong point, it is just what they taught me, and they had experience.

    (the kind of guy who pour water every day on their earth pole to remember about safety)


    EDIT: I reread what you cite accross many safety articles, and finally it seems rational. My old guard professors seems to refers to experiments that were wrongly interpreted.

  • What you say looks true, but that is not what theyr taught me as high power electronic engineer...

    The point is that AC gives you a chance to escape 50 times a seconde (bounce, flee, react). the danger with DC is you get stuck forever...

    Maybe is it a wrong point, it is just what they taught me, and they had experience.

    (the kind of guy who pour water every day on their earth pole to remember about safety)


    What they taught me in my EE circuits class and lab, was that when working around high voltage (AC or DC), always keep your left hand in your pocket, and NEVER, EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE take it out. It was, and is, good advice.

    ;)


    The lab had thick rubber insulating mats. It is virtually impossible to get electrocuted in a lab like this if you work single handedly (preferably with your right hand, for reasons stated above). Grabbing a 1000VAC wire with one hand will have no effect.


    Tesla had a lot of fun entertaining people with high voltage stunts like this (but please don't try this at home, folks).


    But seriously, 50VDC is essentially harmless, while 100VAC can definitely stop your heart. Permanently.

  • I thought AC leads to higher currents because of the capacitance of the human body?


    No, the human body has only a few hundred pico-Farads of capacitance, so electrically 60 Hz is essentially no different than DC regarding any frequency response effects. The issue really is fibrillation of the heart. 60 Hz is simultaneously incredibly low frequency from a RLC (resistance/inductance/capacitance) standpoint, and a very high frequency from a neurochemical/neuromuscular standpoint. Rapid alternating currents (as in 50-60 Hz) passing over your heart will stop it, and this has nothing to do with body capacitance.


    In fact, a serious burn from high voltage (AC or DC) is readily survivable if it involves only an extremity, for example.


    An arrested heart, however, tends to be a more serious health problem.

  • The new EU 'supergrid' will be DC

    Alan?


    Starting at what voltage?

    From where to where?


    Eventually it will have to be inverted to ac,

    On the high voltage side of transformers so

    You still get 230/115 (US), delivered to your home or business.

    If not, every piece of electrical gear in your house would have to be changed

    run on dc.


    I need to be educated on how this would ever be considered,

    And am waiting eagerly for your response,

    Clearly, I am missing something here.

    • Official Post

    https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/p…renewable-electricity.pdf



    Tomorrow’s vision: A pan-European, cross-Mediterranean SuperSmart Grid.


    A pan-European, cross-Mediterranean SuperSmart Grid is the key enabling development for our vision of 100%
    renewable electricity generation in Europe and North Africa by 2050. The unification of the European and North
    African markets would require an overlay HVDC Super Grid, a strongly reinforced HVAC grid and the area-wide
    introduction of Smart technologies and Smart Grids. All bottlenecks at artificial obstacles, such as national or
    legislative borders, would need to be removed. In particular, the North African HVAC grids and interconnections
    would need to be expanded and all North African off-grid electrification schemes integrated into the synchronous
    EU-NA system (except UK and Ireland, which would still only be connected to the continent via HVDC cables). In
    2050, almost all citizens in the entire European-North African area would be connected to the HVAC transmission
    grid.
    The HVDC grid is a key to a fully renewable power supply11. It has two primary tasks: to transport renewable
    electricity from production sites in North Africa and peripheral regions of Europe to load centres and to transport
    electricity away from areas of momentary excess supply to areas with momentary short supply. The HVDC grid
    thus plays an important role in stabilising the underlying HVAC transmission system.
    In our 2050 vision, the only imports into the European power system would be the renewable power imports from
    North Africa to Europe (about 750 TWh/a) which would be enabled by a large number of separate crossMediterranean
    HVDC links. These lines would need to be fully integrated into the overlay grid, which increases
    both the redundancy of export/import trading lines and the security of supply in the entire system. The reliability of
    the system would be at least what it is in Europe today26. The feed-in points for electricity imports into the HVAC
    system would be the same as the feed-in points from the general HVDC grid and the final destination of the
    imported electricity will, just as for domestic European electricity, depend on the production and loads in other parts
    of the system.


    This doc is from 2010. Things have moved on since then quite a lot. ABB are lead research and development contractors AFAIK.

  • I read that the conversion would waste a lot of power with today's transformers. A lot of electricity nowadays ends up being converted to DC, in things like computers. Large data centers need lots of DC. See:


    https://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/…or-data-centers-dc-power/

    Jed,


    Think about it for a minute.

    Every single piece of electrical equipment in your home or business, every single thing that you plug into a wall runs on ac power,

    Even your computer.


    So, now if your power company suddenly decides they want to generate, transmit and distribute dc to your home/business you have to either replace everything, OR,

    Install a dc to ac inverter in front of every single outlet in your home.

    This will never happen amigo.


    They can generate dc, BUT eventually, before some transformer somewhere,

    dc will have to be inverted to ac for industrial, commercial and residential use.


    Edison may have been right, but we have gone to far down that road to turn back now.


    As for your data center suggestion, you have a very limited view.

    I have been involved in 100’s of data centers for a multinational electric engineering firm and the overwhelming majority of them have been ac powered.

    They can certainly bring dc into the white space for rack power, but not for chillers,

    air handlers, cooling towers, condensers etc,.


    Dc has its use no doubt, but not in an industrialized civilization like we live in now.

  • No one suggested it will happen anytime soon. However, data centers are already buy DC capacity, or they generate it directly. That may be more popular as HVDC distribution becomes more widespread. Arthur Clarke was talking about the future when houses generate their own electricity with cold fusion. He suggested it would make more sense to generate DC. By the time this happens, machines will be available for it. Computers and other digital equipment could easily be adapted. Power supplies for portable computers already work seamlessly with European, U.S. and Japanese power.


    In my book, I discuss how the demand for electricity is likely to fall with cold fusion, with direct heat used instead for many applications such as refrigeration or clothes drying.

  • No one suggested it will happen anytime soon. However, data centers are already buy DC capacity, or they generate it directly. That may be more popular as HVDC distribution becomes more widespread. Arthur Clarke was talking about the future when houses generate their own electricity with cold fusion. He suggested it would make more sense to generate DC. By the time this happens, machines will be available for it. Computers and other digital equipment could easily be adapted. Power supplies for portable computers already work seamlessly with European, U.S. and Japanese power.


    In my book, I discuss how the demand for electricity is likely to fall with cold fusion, with direct heat used instead for many applications such as refrigeration or clothes drying.

    Jed,


    Sure, It may be possible “IF” cold fusion is ever brought to the same functional safe reliable and inexpensive status as your existing power supplier.


    As a lifetime engineer in the energy field,

    I certainly have my doubts.


    Let’s agree to disagree and revisit this in 2025

  • No one suggested it will happen anytime soon. However, data centers are already buy DC capacity, or they generate it directly. That may be more popular as HVDC distribution becomes more widespread. Arthur Clarke was talking about the future when houses generate their own electricity with cold fusion. He suggested it would make more sense to generate DC. By the time this happens, machines will be available for it. Computers and other digital equipment could easily be adapted. Power supplies for portable computers already work seamlessly with European, U.S. and Japanese power.


    In my book, I discuss how the demand for electricity is likely to fall with cold fusion, with direct heat used instead for many applications such as refrigeration or clothes drying.

    Jed,


    Again, your data center example is very limited.

    Data centers have triple redundancy for computers, grid power, back up generators and batteries, all tied to the same distribution center.

    A data center simply cannot buy dc power, run it a dedicated distribution system,

    Without having gen and battery back up

    Connected to the same distribution system.

    Typically the gens back up the white space chiller load, which is huge, staggeringly huge

    So your dc power source would have to drive them also, but only after you find a supplier that manufactures dc powered chillers and condensers.


    The idea has merit, but once costs and application engineering expertise are brought into the discussion, dc power for commercial/industrial uses dies a quick death.