LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • Case in point, why the huge discrepancy between what power companies pay for wind and solar power vs. what retail customers pay? Look at what happened in Texas.

    You miss the point. Energy is about mafia since more than 100 years now. Making huge amounts money without doing real work and destroying the environment.

    This leads to fake discussion about wind turbine blades killing some few bird where as global warming kills the planet.


    Fact is: Solar installed kW cost around 2 US cents in Arabia. Wind is installed off shore is around 4-6 cents. Solar in Texas lets you live without the grid. In fact it ends the mafia game. All you need is a Samsung 6-12kWh accumulator.


    If LENR leads to a breakthrough then this will end most of Wind but not solar. LENR can reuse the old coal/nuclear plants infrastructure .

  • Well,, 95% of the article is about some new chemical idea using silicon nanopowders - which they say are currently too expensive to use. So they are using some more conventional chemistry right now- not the silicon system they are promoting. I suspect it is powdered aluminium/gallium alloy.


    This is rather like showing off a revolutionary electric car and then mentioning (very briefly) that it currently has an IC engine because your electrical magic is too expensive to sell.

    There are obvious sings of gold rush and bubbling in hydrogen industry after govts. promised huge money injections.

    I can see multiple articles talking about yet another breakthrough in hydrolysis or fuel cell or alternative hydrogen production tech. Those article typically have lots of preaching to the choir and numbers like 10T market for mobile power!!! etc. What they don't have is actual numbers to see how their tech is better than existing. That is why we always have to wonder what they actually doing apart form burning grant money.

    In this case , I believe, the idea was to combine silicon powder hydrogen production with high efficiency power cell for things like planes, drones etc. but they don't provide how that is better than traditional jet fuel and turbine.

  • Well, Max, I have a commercial hydrogen technology that is more profitable than electrolysis, and always green, But getting funding is a problem still. Most of the cash (if not sll) goes to the big players as usual.

    That is why I am growing against any government interventions. All they can do is to create bubbles. Renewable subsidy, electrical vehicle subsidy, coal mining subsidy, natural gas conversion etc.

  • Beyond Nikola Tesla’s imagination.


    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.

  • This is a new report from ReThinkx - a think-tank whose work is often very interesting.


    The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets


    Today we are releasing the second in a series of reports on the dramatic disruption taking place in the energy sector. Our analysis of historical data reveals that, at least since 2010, the leading analyst organizations, including the International Energy Agency (IEA), the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), Wall Street analysts and others have issued inaccurate estimates of the levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) for coal, natural gas and hydro power plants which are used to direct trillions in investment, creating a growing global financial bubble around conventional power plants with dynamics that are similar to the subprime mortgage housing bubble that led to the Great Recession.


    Mainstream analysts have systematically overestimated how much electricity conventional power plants will be able to generate and sell in the future, and therefore reported levelized costs of electricity that are far too low, making those power plants appear to be much better investments than they turn out to be. The cause of this error can be traced to the false assumption that capacity factor (i.e. utilization rate) will remain high and constant for a conventional power plant’s entire lifetime. Treating capacity factor as a constant rather than as a variable is a fundamental methodological error. By presuming that a coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro power plant will always be able to sell just as much electricity in the future as it can today, mainstream analysts are essentially ignoring all competition and disruption from solar, wind, and batteries.


    When we recalculate LCOE based on actual market data, changing nothing but capacity factor, we see that by 2015 the real LCOE of coal was 50% higher than the EIA reported, and that by 2020 the corrected value was more than 3 times greater than the EIA claimed. Looking ahead, as capacity factor continues to fall, the LCOE of coal rises accordingly, so that by 2030 the corrected value is 9 times greater than the EIA’s current projection. The story for gas, nuclear, and hydro power is much the same. Corrected gas LCOE is 60% higher than the EIA reported for 2020, and 5 times higher than reported for 2030. Nuclear is 175% higher than reported for 2020, and 13 times higher than reported for 2030. Hydro is 230% higher than reported for 2020, and 9 times higher than reported for 2030.


    Without correction, unrealistic LCOE figures will continue to drive over-investment into conventional power. Once the divergence between erroneous LCOE and real levelized costs become impossible for incumbents to deny, the stranding of assets resulting from financial market corrections will be swift, and trillions backed by ratepayers and taxpayers and invested by pension, retirement and endowment funds could become worthless. An example of this is the fact that the market capitalization of coal in the United States, as reflected in the Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index, collapsed by over 99% from a high of 500 in 2011 to less than 5 in 2020, at which point the Index itself was quietly discontinued by S&P Global.


    Decision makers must act immediately to correct this market distortion and protect millions of citizens who might have to bear the financial burden for the stranding. The first step is to correct the unrealistic assumptions about power plant capacity factor.


    Please see our report: The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets.


    https://rethinkx.us15.list-man…d=143bf424ce&e=51d0f3eb02


    Our goal is to inspire a global conversation about the opportunities and threats of this technology-driven disruption and, importantly, the choices that can lead to a more equitable, healthy, resilient, and stable society. As a thought leader, your participation in this conversation is crucial.


    We look forward to a robust discussion. Feel free to contact us directly, or through Twitter and LinkedIn.

  • Cannabis, it’s a climate gas

    Legal cannabis production in Colorado alone emits more greenhouse gases than does the state’s coal-mining industry. The energy required to yield one kilogram of dried flower from cannabis grown indoors generates the equivalent of 2–5 tonnes of CO2, depending on where the plant is grown. Most US cannabis is grown indoors under artificial lights, either for legal reasons or to avoid theft. “The profit margins are so huge that you don’t have to be making super energy-conscious decisions,” says Jason Quinn, who analysed the carbon footprint of the emerging US cannabis industry.


    New Scientist | 3 min read

    Reference: Nature Sustainability paper

  • This just bolsters my previous post that the renewable energy scam is doing nothing more than cannibalizing existing energy infrastructure. Its the new Enron/Sub-prime scandal for the 21st century that makes those look like child's play. Hiding the cannibalization in false assumptions in the LCOE calculations is the neat trick they are playing to turn the odds in favor of the house.

  • Share your expertise, your relevant background to better understand what you come to do here ?


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

    This just bolsters my previous post that the renewable energy scam is doing nothing more than cannibalizing existing energy infrastructure. Its the new Enron/Sub-prime scandal for the 21st century that makes those look like child's play. Hiding the cannibalization in false assumptions in the LCOE calculations is the neat trick they are playing to turn the odds in favor of the house.

  • funny~

    your tax dollars to build a wing turbine and charge you for the power ...

    We pay for everything and then pay for it again with out getting use of what we paid for to begin with.

    put the turbine into the stock market , then build more turbine and pay out the stock holders. "pyramid scheme"

    it never ends.

  • This just bolsters my previous post that the renewable energy scam is doing nothing more than cannibalizing existing energy infrastructure.

    Umm . . . Did transistors cannibalize the market for vacuum tubes? Renewable energy is cheaper than existing energy sources, taking into account various factors. It is even cheaper when you add in the costs of ill health and global warming. This is not cannibalizing, it is progress.

  • That's not how this works. The transistor/vacuum tube comparison is fallacious. Investment is utility companies is based on 20-30 year future revenue projections. They raise cheap money based on the relative stability of this future revenue. If your analogy were true, the fossil fueled dispatchable infrastructure would be mothballed and the solar and wind would take over. That would be progress. The big scam here is the those investors that invested in future revenue for the CCNG plants are in effect subsidizing the "renewable" investors who my any logical thought process should be required to cover for their own intermittency. But the renewable investors export those costs on the backs of the fossil fuel utility investors. The renewables essentially are allowed free reign on replacing future revenue from what used to be a safe low-interest, low risk investment. It is exactly this dissincentivization of grid reliability that is the true cause of the Texas debacle. As for Germany yes they lead in two areas: percentage of energy produced by renewables as well as they lead with the highest retail energy cost in the EU. How do you explain the discrepancy? If renewable energy is so cheap, then why do retail prices increase as non-dispatchable share increases. When renewables can pay for their own remittency then the market will work properly. Now the retirees that put their money in safe utility stocks are being taken for a ride. I am aware that some people think in anrather Machiavellian way, that anything that disincentivizes future non-renewable investments is a good thing and a necessary pain but my argument is more pragmatic. Just as Germany's case shows the economics are not yet worked out, so does the Texas case show that RELIABILITY is the 500lb gorilla in the room that everyone is conveniently ignoring in the name of a more green future. I don't like "solutions" that export problems to others. A true solution has to be a win-win for everyone. We just aren't there yet and that's why we think LENR is going to be the key solution that really ticks all the boxes. If you are OK with the house taking advantage of the little guys, then we just have to agree to disagree.

  • Really. I gues you lost safe ground. Germany's share of renewal is > fossil!

    Wyttenbach you are not following the story here. Alan's post was referring to the SCAM of LCOE calculations which are exactly analogous to the sub-prime repackaging of bad debt to make it look better. Under this analogy its like you are saying but look at all the houses being sold, while ignoring the fact that this bilking of investors is creating a bubble that will take down a major part of the global economy. Again the solution is for intermittent energy sources to pay for their own back up. Now they are stealing that money which is future revenue from other investors.

  • Japan needs nuclear power, says energy minister

    03 February 2021

    https://world-nuclear-news.org…ower-says-energy-minister

    Kajiyama said: "Personally, I think nuclear power will be indispensable."

    He described Japan's electricity supply as "touch-and-go" during heavy snowfall last month,

    which resulted in high electricity prices and tight supplies in some areas of the country.

    "Solar wasn't generating. Wind wasn't generating.

    I'm trying to persuade everybody that in the end we need nuclear power."


    Japan needs LENR nuclear power???