LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • This is also nice example. Denmark sports with largest portion of renewable electricity in its portfolio "thanks" to its offshore wind plants. Not quite occidentally it also has most expensive electricity from whole EU. How is that possible, if it generates electricity "for free"?


    electricprices.gif


    Ah, this is another myth roaming the internet of high costs in renewable countries.


    But the truth is the opposite.


    What these figures fails to explain is Taxes. Denmark is a high tax country where everything is taxed high, like cars are EXTREMELY expensive to buy caused by taxes, compared to prices in the neighbour Germany.


    AND taxes is used to drive the society, like free healthcare, free Universities, paied maternity leave, paied unemplyoment benefits etc. etc.


    AND taxes vary from country to country, like low electricity tax in France and high in Germany and Denmark.


    SO: If you made the same comparison of electricity costs PRE TAX, you would find that market cost of power is HIGHER in Nuclear France than in Germany and Denmark.


    So Renewables has in effect lowered the market price.


    Also to note is that Nuclear France has NO government fund to replace old Nuclear plants with new ones, while Germany has used electricity taxes to build a large fund for funding of future energy systems, being the dream of FUSION or improved Renewable technologies.


  • Hi Ruby,


    In my last reply on energy density I forgot to comment on your concern of "dead landscape."


    I do agree that when building renewables we need to consider the environmental impacts, both during construction, operation and after end of life of the plant.


    But this is politics and regulations that needs to be in place when plants are built.


    Like in my country Norway, there are strict regulations of what studies and documentations that needs to be in place when applying for a concession for a wind power plant in the mountains.


    One such document is a thorough evaluation of all consequences for the nature and surroundings. If there is any rare birds nesting in the area, it is almost certain that the concession wont be given.


    At the end the government rules if the benefits outweighs the disadvantages or not, and concession may or may not be given.


    One of our oldest plants is 20 years old and consist of 68 turbines of 2 MW size. It is still running, but today probably some 5 MW sized turbines would have been used instead, which means you only need some 27 to get the same power. AND the additional benefit if higher capacity factor for larger turbines, i.e. higher annual production.


    Also there is a large amount of eagles in the same area, and is able to thrive and grow even if some have been killed by the turbines during the 20 years in operation. BUT ALL human activities have some disadvantages for nature. I think Humans have just become too many on this earth, that is probably the biggest problem...


    Anyhow, some countries do not have the same strict regulations and conservation of nature..... as far as I know Trump has removed a lot of the environmental regulations in the US that was put in place by previous presidents. That is a shame, since this opens up for some real rape of nature.,.


    regards

    Lande

  • 1. Energy payback time for wind and solar is now months, i.e. Wind and solar is VERY environmental friendly. After a few months they are CO2 negative rest of lifetime.


    Wind is about 6 months these days. Faster than natural gas or nuclear. I don't know about solar.


    There are no more coal plants being built or planned in the U.S. so I do not know what the energy payback time would be, hypothetically.


    We know wind turbines kills birds, but this is less of a problem in offshore turbines. Cats is a bigger threat against birds.


    Much bigger. The Australian government is determined to kill at least 2 million feral cats.


    6. Installing solar panels on building roofs and office facades should be a win win both for owners and the globe as solar is getting REALLY cheap.


    It is a major profit center for large, flat roofed warehouses.


    [Energy payback time for wind and solar is now months . . .]


    Only with massive subsidizes.


    He said energy payback, not dollar payback. You cannot subsidize the energy payback.


    Anyway, you are wrong about the dollar payback. Subsidies have largely been withdrawn. Furthermore, all of us subsidize oil and coal. We pay for the pollution they cause. Coal kills ~20,000 people a year in the U.S. but the industry pays nothing to the families. Any other industry that killed that many people, in ways that are easily prevented, would have to pay billions of dollars in lawsuits. So, these people subsidize coal with with their lives and lost potential earnings.

  • Annual bird deaths in U.S. by cause:


    Cats. 2,407,000,000.

    Buildings. 599,000,000.

    Cars. 199,600,000.

    Power Line Collisions. 22,800,000.

    Communication Towers. 6,581,945.

    Power Line Electrocutions. 5,630,000.

    Wind Turbines. 573,093.


    The concern about bird deaths is perhaps the most bogus criticism of wind power.

  • Communication Towers. 6,581,945.

    Power Line Electrocutions. 5,630,000.

    Wind Turbines. 573,093.


    I believe a large number of birds are also killed by smoke from coal fired plants, and from steam and hot air released by all types of thermal generators (coal, gas and nuclear). I do not recall the numbers, but I think I read that they are much larger than wind turbines measured per megawatt hour of electricity.

  • The so-called "renewables" just convert fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis. A shift to "renewables" will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass.


    To put things into simple perspective, just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants. Another 2 percents of energy is consumed into production of aluminum. Well, for 100% replacement of fossils by "renewables" we would need 2 x 90 = 180% of energy consumption today - and we are already in the red numbers: the implementation of "renewables" would increase our fossil energy consumption two-fold once when we consider only the concrete and aluminium needed for it!


  • I love your numbers oystia, but not the underlying assumptions. We are a mass extinction right now. Species numbers are plummeting all around the globe, and seeing land as a blank slate for human development is what got us here.


    The idea that we can put multiple times the land area into generating energy because no people or animals will be there just isn't the reality. I found this graphic that shows how we can bump up against critical wildlife. It is my personal view that we shouldn't take anymore from the wild; that's we've taken enough already bringing animals to the brink. We need a smaller human footprint not bigger. Incremental efficiencies in conversion rates are too puny to bank on. Also, anytime there is a grid, this is HUGE losses in transmission. Connecting wind to the grid is short term and IMHO not where we should be putting the meager resources.


    We even have to start growing food differently, and probably, indoors where less resources are used and results in a better quality. Currently drought, flooding, frost, all are causing disruption in outdoor food production, not to mention the need for hydrocarbons to fertilize the large tracts. "Farmland" is really a dead earth plied with chemicals. and it needs sun. Wouldn't solar block the sun?


    At any rate, we can agree on one thing, that LENR is the answer (until zero point comes along!) That's what we have to talk up. No grid, micro footprint, ultra-clean, you know all the benefits! A technology is close, and this science needs support.


    Currenlty I do support the idea of solar for individuals and communities as a back-up. I live in California and we get power outages periodically and micro-grids would be helpful during those times.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com…4/16/GR2009041600093.html

    GR2009041600093.gif

  • For a different view of Moore’s dangerous BS:


    https://www.yaleclimateconnect…dangerous-climate-denial/

    Thank you for the link to that review, though I do not agree that this move peddles climate denial. If climate denialists are liking it, it's only because Moore and Gibbs excoriate Al Gore, a target for the right. I will say that i am so left I flip all the way around right sometimes!


    Here is a quote from the article:

    In one scene, author and film co-producer Ozzie Zehner falsely asserts, “You use more fossil fuels [manufacturing renewables infrastructure] than you’re getting benefit from. You would have been better off burning the fossil fuels in the first place instead of playing pretend.” That’s monumentally wrong.

    A 2017 study in Nature Energy found that when accounting for manufacturing and construction, the lifetime carbon footprints of solar, wind, and nuclear power are about one-twentieth of those of coal and natural gas, even when the latter include expensive carbon capture and storage technology. The energy produced during the operation of a solar panel and wind turbine is 26 and 44 times greater than the energy needed to build and install them, respectively. There are many life-cycle assessment studies arriving at similar conclusions.
    The film's case is akin to arguing that because fruit contains sugar, eating strawberries is no healthier than eating a cheesecake.


    What I see here is a failure to tally all the accounting. They note "

    produced during the operation of a solar panel and wind turbine is 26 and 44 times greater than the energy needed to build and install them, " but this is a system that has less energy density than fossil fuels. How many MORE wind farms would we need to power the town? It's not a one-to-one swap. And then, if they only last twenty-thirty years, and we have an ecological dead zone, how is that cost factored in?


    So fossil fuels are still needed to mine the material, transport the material, manufacture the units, and then take more land from wildlife. OK, it's less carbon, but all around, it's less energy. The trade-off is barely worth it. Even Richard Heinberg is on the record for saying as much.


    I will admit the movie portrays renewables just about as bad as fossil fuels, when in reality they are a little better. But if we're talking about powering civilization, we should be realistic about what kind of power is needed. Renewables are shown to have limited use, unless the technology changes dramatically. If that's the case, why not change technology dramatically and work towards LENR?

  • fringe ideas are notions that there is not enough energy available from renewable sources and that they are fundamentally harmful to the environment. Such ideas are espoused either by people with specific agendas or those with basic misunderstandings.


    As for LENR’s place in all of this, I don’t have an opinion, despite Jed’s insistence that I am not permitted to not have one. All I can say is if it really works, can be developed, and can scale, then it would be the cat’s meow.


    Yes, if solar and wind can scale, and power the town, and power the mining operation, and the transportation sector, and the manufacturing plant, the cat would have a tongue!

  • http://www.leparisien.fr/amp/f…__twitter_impression=true


    This is called "the fraud of the century" and, one by one, its perpetrators go through the prison hut . Franco-Israeli Mickael Aknin was sentenced Thursday in Lyon to six years in prison for his involvement in a large CO2 tax swindle involving more than 50 million euros, we learned from his lawyer.

    Mickael Aknin, 39, was arrested in Israel in the summer of 2018 and extradited last August at the request of the French government. The criminal court reproached him for having manipulated fictitious companies having embezzled approximately 51 million euros at the expense of the French tax authorities, at the end of the 2000s, in the context of a large VAT fraud on the “ rights to pollute ”.

  • The so-called "renewables" just convert fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis. A shift to "renewables" will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass.


    To put things into simple perspective, just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants. Another 2 percents of energy is consumed into production of aluminum. Well, for 100% replacement of fossils by "renewables" we would need 2 x 90 = 180% of energy consumption today - and we are already in the red numbers: the implementation of "renewables" would increase our fossil energy consumption two-fold once when we consider only the concrete and aluminium needed for it!


    Zephir, the idea of coming shortage of metals is yet another internet myth. There are no shortage the coming 100 years. And After that we have surely startet mining asteroids ;-)


    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2017/05/170502114002.htm


    You are also wrong on the wind and solar share. These sources produce electricity, and you confuse with all other sources like liquid fuels used for Planes, Ships etc.. We have to compare bananas with bananas ;);)


    The figure below is the share of global electricity for wind and solar the last 25 years. And this illustrates the FORCE of EXPONENTIAL growth. You are not aware of it before it suddenly takes over everything, just as a the Corona virus...


    And since the trend will continue the next decade, solar and wind will push out coal within a decade.


    Also LENR will have to go through an exponential curve if or when it arrives on the stage....


  • Don't forget we are probably all just sitting on the biggest fission/fusion LENR reactor under our feet on the core of the Earth. Exploiting this resource is still in its infancy, if exploited in centuries to come it could solve all our energy problems.

    Hawaii is harnessing volcano energy to go 100% renewable ...

    www.businessinsider.com › hawaii-volcanoes-first-100-...


    9 Jul 2015 - ... more than two months on 100% renewable energy. Geothermal energy siphoned from active volcanoes made up a good chunk of that figure.


    Yellowstone Super-Volcano Could Be an Energy Source. But ...


    www.nationalgeographic.co.uk › environment › 2018/08

    8 Aug 2018 - Yellowstone Super-Volcano Could Be an Energy Source. ... United States in debris and potentially plunge Earth into a volcanic winter.

    Solve the global warming crisis too. Another engineering problem - controlling volcanic eruptions by releasing their critical energy over planned timescales - could also reduce/control eathquake activity. Realms of Sci Fi for now!

  • Renewables should be called 'Intermittablels'. We need to add materials needed to manufacture storage or transmission (there is always sunlight somewhere, there is always 5 o'clock somewhere, blah blah) to Zephyr's numbers.

    While the tech itself is feasible as a niche or supplement it only exist now due to massive subsidies and the fact that traditional produce base load.

  • The so-called "renewables" just convert fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis. A shift to "renewables" will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass.


    This is an idea of short brained people.


    As mentioned above. E-cars use at most 1/3 of the fuel equivalent energy always given in oil equivalents! Isolated building need 1/6 of the heating energy. So all figures making you believe we have to replace equal amounts are bare nonsense.


    Whole twenty years of "renewable" didn't leave a single dent on carbon dioxide levels. One doesn't have to be genius for to recognize, that this strategy doesn't work.


    May be you never heard about population growth and mad money greedy and power hungry Chinese dictators family that did build 1 coal power plant each week for many years now. With the result that the air in Peking is the worst world wide... And last: The meltdown of Russian Canadian permafrost + tropical forests frees more carbon than we burn.

  • Renewables should be called 'Intermittablels'. We need to add materials needed to manufacture storage or transmission (there is always sunlight somewhere, there is always 5 o'clock somewhere, blah blah) to Zephyr's numbers.

    While the tech itself is feasible as a niche or supplement it only exist now due to massive subsidies and the fact that traditional produce base load.


    As I showed in above trend, Solar and Wind now supply 9% of annual global electricity supply.


    Hardly a niche product anymore.


    And no, in the Sunny places on the globe, NO subsidies are required for solar, same for wind many places.


    AND cost for solar and wind is still falling.