LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • Zephir is not able to learn and change his reasoning.


    Can somebody try to explain him once more that insulation and heat pump together will reduce the amount of energy used for heating by a factor of 15-30. That electric cars use at most 1/3 of the fuel !! In stop and go 1/7 compared to carbon. (city traffic..).

    Traffic and heating is more than 50% of the world energy consumption. After 3 years of primary school yo should be able to do these calculations...

  • Quote

    That electric cars use at most 1/3 of the fuel !!


    But this fuel must be produced in fossil fuel plants which operate with 30/40% efficiency only. Charging/recharging cycle is also not for free and 20% of energy gets wasted in it. It immediately renders electric car comparable with these gasoline ones. Not to say, when substantial amount of electricity is used for heating in winter times - then electric cars become even less effective than classical ones. Not to say, that price of electricity is only fraction of TCO of electric cars. Why are so much expensive? Well, because additional energy is consumed for production of batteries and electric car infrastructure. As the result only rich people can afford electric cars today, simply because they still have higher carbon footprint than classical ones. Once again, if you want to save fossil fuels and nature, you must do the things CHEAPER - there's no other way around it.

  • Conventional electricity generation is about 30% efficient, whereas combined heat and power (also called co-generation) converts up to 90 percent of the fuel into...

    Unfortunately electric car batteries cannot utilize this waste heat anyway.. And coal plants operate at lower temperatures than modern gas plants, thus at lower efficiency.
    60%+ of electricity is still generated in coal plants so that your numbers (43/45% actually) would really apply to small fraction of plants.


    efficiencies.gif

  • Quote

    Efficiency is a nearly worthless metric for any generator whose fuel is free and virtually unlimited.


    Fuel is free, but generator is not and it must be rebuild every twenty/thirty years. We already discussed this extensively here. What makes the "renewables" "cheap" is the fact, they utilize fossils plants and their grid for balance and backup. They behave like parasite which also seemingly exists for free. Except that it can never exist on its very own. Even if "renewables" would cut consumption of fossils by one half (which they don't, they actually increase it) it wouldn't help very much because world consumption of energy doubles every sixteen/eighteen years, so that we get only extra few years at best.

  • But this fuel [for electric cars] must be produced in fossil fuel plants which operate with 30/40% efficiency only.


    1. No, it can be produced in any electric power plant: fossil fuel, hydro, wind, solar or nuclear. Most electric cars are charged overnight, when rates are low, or free. So, in Texas they are all charged with wind, and in Georgia mainly with nuclear power. As of April 2020, nowhere in the U.S. are they likely to be charged with coal. Coal is now less used than hydro, wind and solar combined. Which, by the way, shows that your hypothesis that wind causes more fossil fuel use is nonsense.


    2. Electric cars are 3 to 4 times more efficient than gasoline cars taking into account the fuel used in thermal fossil fuel plants. In other words, it take 3 times less natural gas energy to run an electric car than the energy content of a gasoline fossil fuel car. Did you think we could estimate the efficiency of an electric car without taking into account the fuel burned in a thermal fossil fuel plant? What would that estimate be based on? The efficiency would be infinite.

  • Fuel is free, but generator is not and it must be rebuild every twenty/thirty years.


    All generators, of all types, must be rebuilt every twenty or thirty years. They all wear out. Wind turbines last as long as any. The towers last 50 to 100 years, like hydroelectric dams, so less has to be replaced than coal or natural gas. Coal plants last 40 or 50 years, but the generators need maintenance and replacement before that. They are now being retired earlier than 50 years because they are not economical. See:


    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40212


    What makes the "renewables" "cheap" is the fact, they utilize fossils plants and their grid for balance and backup.


    It is the other way around. Wind and solar are more reliable and more predictable than coal or nuclear plants. Nuclear plants in particular are prone to sudden shutdowns because of plumbing problems. You lose an entire 1 GW plant in an instant. That never happens with wind or solar. At most, 1 MW (one turbine) goes off. You know how much power a wind farm will produce a week ahead of time with modern weather forecasting, so you can plan for it. You cannot plan for a plumbing problem in a nuke.


    Note that plumbing problems destroyed two U.S. nuclear plants: Three Mile Island and Connecticut Yankee. Two others were destroyed by fire. Fire sometimes destroys wind turbines, but only one at a time, with no more than ~1 MW of capacity gone.

  • Quote

    No, it can be produced in any electric power plant: fossil fuel, hydro, wind, solar or nuclear.



    This is just the difference between scientific thinking of yours and realistic one of mine. The scientists live from promises of their blue-sky research, so that they all live in distant future, whereas conservatives live from the past. They also care about lab values of performance and ignore for example installation cost. I'm neither progressive, neither conservative - so that I can see, the fraction of fossil fuels to electricity generation didn't change during whole "renewables" era and I've theory why it is so. During this era the "renewables" could remain cheap as they parasitized on fossil fuel production due to their low penetration - but this symbiotic approach already did hit its limits. Now "renewables" must also care about its balance, grid and backup in the same way like fossils, so that they only could get more expensive than before, because their effectiveness also did hit its technological/physical limits.


    wgxeMh1.png

  • [No, it can be produced in any electric power plant: fossil fuel, hydro, wind, solar or nuclear.]


    This is just the difference between scientific and realistic thinking.


    WHAT on earth are you talking about?!? Electric cars are powered by fossil fuel, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear. I have an electric car, and I assure you, it is powered mainly by nuclear reactors. Because that's where electricity comes from in the dead of night in Georgia. In Texas, electric cars are mostly powered by wind, because wind power costs nothing at night. In Washington most electric cars run on hydroelectricity, because that's where most of their electricity comes from. (https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA) In California, no electric car runs on coal, because they don't have any coal generators. (They do use coal in other industries.)


    Anyone with an electric car will sign up for "night and weekend" rates. In Georgia, they charge 20 cents/KWh during the day, and 5 cents after hours. Obviously, I recharge after hours.


    https://www.georgiapower.com/r…lans/nights-weekends.html

  • The towers of wind plants are already at the end of their life-time.


    Older, first generation one are at the end of their lifetime. Newer ones will last 50 to 100 years. Much longer than coal fired plants or nukes. Wind uses less material per watt of capacity than coal or nukes, especially when you include the materials needed to mine and ship coal. Coal mining equipment also wears out. Those 670 ton mining trucks that are 7 meters tall? They wear out after 30 or 40 years. They have to be replaced. Oil and gas wells also run out of oil or gas, and have to be replaced. Did you think equipment for fossil fuel lasts forever?


    Coal also requires railroad tracks, locomotives and cars. Tracks last about 40 years. They are made of steel, the same as wind turbine towers, so they are no easier (or harder) to recycle. It takes far more steel railroad track per watt of generator capacity than the wind tower. The railroad stretch for miles, and most of the traffic is for coal.


    so that I can see, the fraction of fossil fuels to electricity generation didn't change during whole "renewables" era


    You can see that where? In your dreams? Coal went from 60% to 25%. That's not a big change? Assuming the renewables era began in 1980, renewables went from 13% to 18% of capacity, while coal fell 35%. In absolute terms, renewables have gone from 285 to 720 billion KWh from 1980 to 2019. Coal went from 1,162 to 966. This year it has dropped below renewables.


  • Quote

    Oil and gas wells also run out of oil or gas, and have to be replaced. Did you think equipment for fossil fuel lasts forever?



    Of course - just because of it the question whether "renewables" do really curb the fossil fuel consumption is so imminent. And until share of fossils on energy generation remains steady, then it's apparent, that they don't do it. They just dissolve their energy consumption in another areas of industry by converting fossil fuel crisis into raw source crisis (which is ipso-facto just another form of energy crisis).

  • But this fuel must be produced in fossil fuel plants which operate with 30/40% efficiency only. Charging/recharging cycle is also not for free and 20% of energy gets wasted in it. It immediately renders electric car comparable with these gasoline ones. Not to say, when substantial amount of electricity is used for heating in winter times - then electric cars become even less effective than classical ones. Not to say, that price of electricity is only fraction of TCO of electric cars. Why are so much expensive? Well, because additional energy is consumed for production of batteries and electric car infrastructure. As the result only rich people can afford electric cars today, simply because they still have higher carbon footprint than classical ones. Once again, if you want to save fossil fuels and nature, you must do the things CHEAPER - there's no other way around it.



    https://www.carbonbrief.org/fa…-to-tackle-climate-change


    See assumptions at end of this article.


    Note that CO2 emmissions from grid electricity depend on fuel mix and in UK have dropped by 38% in just 3 years. Amazing! So we expect EVs will do much better as time goes on and grid uses less carbon.


    How good they actually are obviously depends on country they are driven in.


    THH

  • Of course - just because of it the question whether "renewables" do really curb the fossil fuel consumption is so imminent


    Anyone can see that coal is collapsing, and renewables are increasing exponentially. That question is not "imminent." It is lunatic. You are blind to simple numbers from industry and the EIA. Why do you think coal companies are going out of business? Why do you think power companies are retiring coal plants, with no plans to build more? The numbers are right here:


    https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl…electricity-in-the-us.php

  • I don’t know why we continue to argue with Zephir. He is not remotely interested in facts. He has a twisted vendetta against renewable energy sources and seems to think that any random data he cites supports his position. Obviously, nothing will change that. When shown that his “evidence” is meaningless, he moves on to more irrelevant information or just makes patently false assertions. Perhaps we should simply let him babble on and remain frustrated that he is the only person in the world who sees the truth. Fortunately for the world, it really doesn’t matter what Zephir thinks.

  • Of course - just because of it the question whether "renewables" do really curb the fossil fuel consumption is so imminent. And until share of fossils on energy generation remains steady, then it's apparent, that they don't do it.

    This statement from Zephir clearly illustrate what he misunderstand:


    - Global economic growth means higher electricity consumption in rich countries and in poor countries.

    - Global population growth also increase electricity consumption


    These facts Lead to an average growth of global electricity of around 2,5% pr. Year the last 5 years.


    ZEPHIR think there is no growth it seems.


    No then,, is the growth of solar and wind high enough to supply ALL the yearly 2,5% growth of total electricity consumption?


    No, not quite yet. BUT;


    Solar growth is around 24% pr. Year and wind grows around 15% pr Year.


    So it is much higher than total growth.


    This means that within a few years Wind and Solar ALONE can supply ALL the yearly growth AND assist in reducing COAL consumption.


    The point is keeping solar and wind grows faster than total global growth.


    That will Lead to Solar and wind overtake coal at some point in time.


    And coal is the most important pollutant we need to attack first.


    Then we need to electrify all global transport to remove Liquid fuels.

  • https://www.theguardian.com/en…begin-development-in-kent


    Britain’s largest solar farm, capable of generating enough clean electricity to power 91,000 homes, is poised to receive the greenlight from ministers this week.

    The subsidy-free renewables park is expected to reach a capacity of 350MW by installing 880,000 solar panels – some as tall as buses – across 364 hectares (900 acres) of farmland in the Kent countryside.

    The project is expected to be constructed one mile north-east of Faversham close to the village of Graveney and may also include one of the largest energy storage installations in the world.