LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • 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 !!

  • 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~

    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

  • quiestion of size.

    How many seconds of storage? you need few days for wind, when there is a cold spelle with antcyclonic configuration.

    The cost of storage is huge.

    Best option is Hydro, STEP, but it is expensive, limited, and opposed.

    Someone of the domain gave this quick numbers:

    Honestly, LENR is more probable in 5 years than the desired breakthrough in storage (by the way some technology is common).

    Sometime I'm sad the mindguard attack us, with those crazy mainstream dreams free in the media.

    Teapot calling the kettle black.

  • 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



  • 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...

  • External Content twitter.com
    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.

    Muddy interview but with clear promise of abundand hydrogen from sea water. Early in the interview the cavitation is being mentioned.

    Important info past 42min

  • 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!