LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • much smaller with a route to commercial fusion by 2030:

    2030 might be optimistic judging by previous fusion timelines

    but with enough funding who knows?


    Total funds raised for fusion venture Tokamak Energy exceeds £50M

    But who here is against optimism?


    I am not against optimism for LENR.. especially relative to ITER fusion

  • The Fusion Reactor Next Door


    "Entrepreneurs are taking up the search for a near limitless energy source and seeking investors willing to put money behind a long-shot bet against climate change"



    "The fusing of hydrogen and helium atoms requires incredible heat and pressure, and for decades fusion research has been the exclusive province of big science, like ITER, a 35-nation thermonuclear project in the south of France that covers 100 acres and is expected to ultimately cost more than $20billion"

  • either failure or success


    ITER propaganda continually touts success .. after 2050 now... never failure.


    However nuclear research physicist, Jassby , does talk failure

    "When confronted by this reality, even the most starry-eyed energy planners may abandon fusion. Rather than heralding the dawn of a new energy era, it’s likely instead that ITER will perform a role analogous to that of the fission fast breeder reactor, whose blatant drawbacks mortally wounded another professed source of “limitless energy” and enabled the continued dominance of light-water reactors in the nuclear arena."


    https://thebulletin.org/2018/0…awbacks-of-fusion-energy/

  • Can you be honest and omit an important drawbacks of the tech such as hard radiation?

    Add to here Krivit's activism making ITER to restate power calculations.

    Surely scientist at ITER are a standard of honesty and transparency unlike Harvard graduates R.Mills and such.

    It is always upper management with business degrees spreading fakes and manipulating numbers.

  • The biggest drawback of hot fusion is that it creates a lot of Neutrons that make avery metal part they touch radioactive. But nobody talks about the persistent high-energy gammas that produces.


    Here is an analysis that talks about the fact that they don't talk about this: Krakowski, R.A., et al., Lessons Learned from the Tokamak Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES). 1993, Los Alamos National Laboratory.


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf


    I think that is what they are saying here:


    "Although the possibility for a life-of-plant fusion power core exists for ARIESIII, limitations of the systems model ( e.g., constant plant availability, no direct measure of or penalty for total life-cycle radioactive waste volume generation, generally long radiation lifetimes assumed for most blanket/shield materials exposed to DT neutrons) did not allow credits to be awarded for this possibility; model refinements and extensions are needed in this regard, with related implications going beyond the burning of D-3He ( e.g., tradeoffs related to neutron wall loading and MPD ver8U8 increased availability and reduced life-cycle radioactive waste volume)."

    p. 27

  • When even respected physicists like Jassby become highly critical of ITER and the whole hot fusion approach - isn't it time to pull the plug on the whole operation? It's a multi-billion dollar white elephant. Giving LENR a golden opportunity to take over where spheromaks, tokamaks, laser ignition, inertial confinement and dense plasma focus fusion systems have all failed. Time to get our act together.

  • When even respected physicists like Jassby become highly critical of ITER and the whole hot fusion approach - isn't it time to pull the plug on the whole operation? It's a multi-billion dollar white elephant. Giving LENR a golden opportunity to take over where spheromaks, tokamaks, laser ignition, inertial confinement and dense plasma focus fusion systems have all failed. Time to get our act together.

    Giving all of you a chance to step in to help out would take almost a biblical event ...

  • For anything Hydrogen, you can compare to Alan and Martin's Ecalox LTD Hydrogen Mine (The Symposium was cx I believe):


    The new topic at the symposium regards a revolutionary new hydrogen source, developed by the company Ecalox of which Smith is the co-founder. Ecalox has developed a carbon-free and environmentally friendly process for recycling aluminium cans, producing aluminium oxide, and yielding large amounts of hydrogen without any net input of energy.


    Burning hydrogen releases only pure water, and the many benefits of the ‘hydrogen economy’ have been touted for decades, but it remains elusive. Both hydrogen vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are sometimes deployed, but the lack of a low-cost hydrogen supply has limited their use to too few subsidized and often short-lived projects. This is because there is a chicken-and-egg problem—too few users mean no availability of cheap hydrogen, and expensive hydrogen means there is no incentive to grow a market for technologies that use it.


    Now, after years of investigation and laboratory experiments, a new process called the Hydrogen Mine has been developed—bench testing of small systems is approaching completion and a pilot plant is at the design stage. The process, which is carbon-free, immediately profitable, environmentally friendly, and has no net consumption of energy uses aluminium cans as a raw material. In this way, it also solves a worldwide hushed-up issue with aluminium recycling and creates a real alternative for those communities currently dumping them.


    As with many other materials that are recycled, the official statistics for aluminium recycling have poor consistency with reality. While statistically up to 50% or even 60% of all beverage cans may be collected, even in ‘best practice’ countries at least 40% of all cans end up in regulated or unregulated landfills, and most of the rest end up in long-term storage, and may be exported or dumped at some later date. The real recycling rate globally is nearer to 15%.

    The reasons for this are many, ranging from long distance road haulage of cans not being cost-efficient, to highly toxic fume emissions from small-scale local recycling smelters, and low value of the recycled metal because of carbon and other contaminants.

    In contrast, the Hydrogen Mine process solves the recycling problem, while also producing hydrogen, tapping into an estimated global stockpile of crushed cans between 3 and 5 million tons. It uses a proprietary aluminum oxidation catalyst, water, shredded cans, and nothing else—no acids, no solvents, nothing toxic—and produces high-grade aluminum oxide and pure hydrogen.


    The production of aluminium oxide—or aloxite—is another advantage. Aloxite is used in many industries, and every ton produced in a traditional way releases 8 tons of CO2, 3 tons of ‘red mud’, which is basically a contaminated waste product and thousands of gallons of polluted water. It also pretty much destroys a few square meters of (usually) virgin land.


    The Hydrogen Mine has none of these side effects, and it is readily scalable up to a continuous hydrogen energy output of 5MW.

  • the mine will benefit from robust storage like any other hydrogen tech. Research is active in fuel cells - bringing down amount of platinum to 10 of grams. Hopefully generation will catch up a well.

    IMHO solar -> hydrogen or solar -> electricity is the only tech not changing overall energy balance in the atmosphere. All others - LENR, nuclear, fossil are liberating energy stored adding heat to the balance. That concern is a remote but when we finally dealt with fossils this will become a major one in order to stop climate change.

    Solar plus storage gives certain opportunities for the third world in exporting solar energy form where it is plenty.

  • the mine will benefit from robust storage like any other hydrogen tech. Research is active in fuel cells - bringing down amount of platinum to 10 of grams. Hopefully generation will catch up a well.

    IMHO solar -> hydrogen or solar -> electricity is the only tech not changing overall energy balance in the atmosphere. All others - LENR, nuclear, fossil are liberating energy stored adding heat to the balance. That concern is a remote but when we finally dealt with fossils this will become a major one in order to stop climate change.

    Solar plus storage gives certain opportunities for the third world in exporting solar energy form where it is plenty.




    Agreed - FF combustion - or waste heat from nuclear or other power stations - is not that significant in the earth energy balance


    https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm


    But equally it is not completely insignificant, and can affect climate on a regional scale:


    Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth's land–atmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively. Here, present and future global inventories of anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) are developed, and parameterizations derived for seasonal and diurnal flux cycles. Equilibrium climate experiments show statistically-significant continental-scale surface warming (0.4–0.9°C) produced by one 2100 AHF scenario, but not by current or 2040 estimates. However, significant increases in annual-mean temperature and planetary boundary layer (PBL) height occur over gridcells where present-day AHF exceeds 3.0 W m−2. PBL expansion leads to a slight, but significant increase in atmospheric residence time of aerosols emitted from large-AHF regions. Hence, AHF may influence regional climate projections and contemporary chemistry-climate studies.



    More relevant perhaps of the things we can change short-term is the methane component of the greenhouse effect.


    Methane from ruminants (cows etc) represents around 20% of the total emission budget. Methane has an occupancy time in the atmosphere of around 10 years, with the main sink being atmospheric conversion to CO2 and H2O. It gives us 25% of man-made warming


    So, for example, if we all ate 50% less meat and dairy products, and therefore farmed 50% less cows, this would within 10 years have a significant negative effect on the levels of warming.


    Since CO2 has residence 1000s of years we cannot simply undo current warming by no longer emitting CO2. And we won't know how urgently we need to reduce warming until it has happened.


    Nice to know that by scaling down meat and dairy consumption we can make a fast change to warming - even if it is relatively small. It might make the difference between being over or under a tipping point.


    For that same purpose we also have atmospheric aerosols: more expensive but possible. However that would decrease the yield of crops.


    THH