A mix of aluminum gallium and steal brought to a standing liquid state with its own heat. adding mercury has its own reaction to aluminum~ as the mix is also galvanic and another part of the mix is hematite with cracked obsidian the galvanic with attach to the cracks at low voltage, to bring the volts up with a mag to jumpstart the agitation of the diggers to high state microwave"mag" in line with the flow. mixing mercury with aluminum will push the entire mix to keep feeding the reaction. Sorry I don't have a pic yet, I need more time to get done.

Wyttenbach wrote: Of course Germany is still much better than UK. REALLY?

In 2015, Germany generated electricity from the following sources: UK REAL TIME 26/12/18

• 24.0% Lignite. )
• ) ---- 42.2% COAL 6.46%
• 18.2% Hard coal )
• 14.1% Nuclear. NUCLEAR 20.87%
• 12.0% Onshore wind. WIND 10.84%
• 8.8% Natural gas NATURAL GAS 44.94% (ccgt) .
• 6.8% Biomass BIOMASS 5.35%.
• 5.9% Solar. SOLAR 1.42%
• 3.0% Hydro. HYDRO 1.39%

Table didn;t come out as written:

Anyway: Gernany= lower case

UK = upper case


Bottom line : Germany burns 6.53 times more coal

than the UK.

Germany plans to shut down it's clean nuclear generation.

Why would you want to do that ???? CRAZY !!

Quote from Peter

Germany plans to shut down it's clean nuclear generation.

Why would you want to do that ????

May be you never touched the clean nuclear fuel after energy production...

https://www.greentechmedia.com…-are-dwindling#gs.NoI80jE

Chinese Researchers Claim Wind Resources Are Dwindling

“The results show that surface wind speeds were decreasing in the past four decades over most regions in the Northern Hemisphere.”

climate warming will put an end to wind power in the near future.

Quote from Alan Smith

https://www.greentechmedia.com…-2018-in-brief#gs.X6SKLxk

What a depressing read! Thanks for the link Max.

The largest fuel cell use is in Japan. Over 200000 cells help to stabilize the grid. Toyota sells a fuel cell car. Not mentioned in the report...

The main problem with e.g. methanol fuel cells (Bloom) is that the electrical efficiency still is slightly below a turbo gas power plant, which now reaches close to 60%!! The only use for such cell is cars and remote off grid buildings or as a storage system for wind/hydrogen coupling. Fuel cells for buildings only start to pay off if you can use the excess heat and also need all the current produced...

More toys~

Just out this week.. Last year 30% of the electricity produced in the UK came from renewable sources. Not convinced storage is essential just yet. Probably in 10 years.

In some places, storage can be done now. For example, in the Alps they build pumped water storage which is compact, powerful and efficient.

Alternative sources such as wind are incredibly abundant some places, and missing elsewhere. Wind is not evenly distributed. The North Sea wind resources could supply roughly 4 times more electricity than all of Western Europe consumes. North and South Dakota could supply all of North America with wind generated electricity if only there were some way to transmit it, and store it. If it could be converted to synthetic liquid fuel it would supply more fuel than all of the oil wells in the Middle East.

On the other hand there are virtually no wind resources in Georgia. Not much reliable solar either, because we get so much rain.

For those areas with wind.. levelised costs,

LCOE for onshore were down to 6c/Kwhr in 2017..

solar is getting down to 10c/Kwh 2017 near nuclear

..of course now is 2019

but I doubt whether nuclear is decreasing to under 10c/Kwh

(unless Korea or other subsidises the capital cost)

Solar / wind will probably keep decreasing somewhat..

the nuclear lobby (2015 ) chooses

different data from the renewable lobby

https://www.irena.org/publicat…-generation-costs-in-2017

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i…ics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

A few practical examples of nuclear vs renewable costs:

first the construction time of Nuclear has proven to be 10-15 years in Europe and US, which is pretty insane.. A close example to Norway is the Finnish Olkiluoto (1600 MWe) EPR project, where construction started in 2006 and still not completed.

Wind and Solar can be constructed much-much faster than this and is therefore a better solution if fast increase of global electricity generation are needed.

The above-mentioned Finnish project has a CAPEX level of 6,2 USD/watt installed capacity (from numbers released in 2012 – probably increased since). The French Flamanville (1600 MWe) EPR project that was recently completed ended at 7,9 USD/watt installed capacity.

If we compare with Solar, there are investments in the news of 0,81 USD/watt installed capacity for Solar in good solar regions. Even if we adjust for capacity level (30% in best places) we get 2,7 USD/watt of actual average power delivery, far below Nuclear. And there are solar power purchase agreements reported with the lower rates than achieved by coal or Natural gas.

Even the recent started Hinkley Point Nuclear project in the UK can be mentioned: They will receive a guaranteed price of 92,5 UK £/MWhr for the electricity, which will be adjusted for inflation rate for the next 35 years. An insane price, twice the market market price and higher than offshore bottom fixed wind power.

So if LENR comes true, it will be far cheaper and have shorter construction time than the present nuclear, since there is no similar safety issues. I expect it would be in the range of Natural gas power projects, but with lower OPEX since the fuel will be cheaper...

The Hinckley Point reactor plan should be abandoned for other reasons apart from the ridiculous price and tax-payer rip off - that area is prone to sea surge flooding well documented over the last thousand years - we'll end up with another Fukushima!