LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • Dunderheads are not just confined to the USSR.. they are also in the OSSR..


    "Why is Ontario's electricity so costly? Because the Ontario government has for the past decade been running the province's power sector with something approaching the skill of Soviet commissars. It has politicized decision-making, taking it out of the hands of independent experts. It deliberately broke the system, creating huge new costs without benefits. And it doesn't seem to know how to fix it, or want to.


    https://www.theglobeandmail.co…y-system/article27571292/

    I have no idea on agreed contracts in Ontario, and why they should vary

  • Batteries are just batteries, any old storage system will do, the only advantage of modern ones is that they have a better energy/mass ratio. Electric cars were used before the invention of the internal combustion engine, that's why I think which we should be using motorized milk floats or golf carts instead of all this high tech baloney which uses up rare minerals which will have in the future limited supply. Unless we start mining asteroids like in the Expanse SCI FI.

  • "

    Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?"

    That question is the subject of a fascinating recent bit of research out of an MIT lab run by researcher Jessika Trancik

    just released in the journal Joule.


    The answer is...$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs.

    That’s how cheap storage would have to get for renewables to get to 100 percent.

    That’s around a 90 percent drop from today’s costs.

    While that is entirely within the realm of the possible, there is wide disagreement over when it might happen; few expect it by 2030.


    https://www.vox.com/energy-and…-storage-cost-electricity


    This study assumes that renewable == solar/wind.(not LENR).. which of course depends on how renewable our Sol is..


    Practical stuff here..

    https://www.solarquotes.com.au…ich-is-best-for-off-grid/

  • And the modern lithium ion batteries are prone to explode on aircraft or space vehicles look what happened to Hammond for Top Gear, but then he was always accident prone. I know Clarkson is a petrol head but the series is such a laugh. Did not go down to well in Argentina but The Falklands was our land. I keep thinking of the bravery of our soldiers there wish I could have flown a Vulcan then like my Dad who was in Bomber Command. I dont know but my brother keeps scrapping electric cars and I warned him about scrapping electric cars for bits. He got himself electrocuted, not seriously, he is dyslexic and does not understand the physics behind it. He just chops up bits of metal, restores old MG,s l just hope he doesn't blow himself up one day, he also uses recycled bits of solar panels and now is off-grid. So it all can be done cheaply if you have a decent workshop, and without the physics background. Now he is raving on about super capacitors. I told him to stop it until I manage to visit him.

  • My sister and Dad in NZ have been running Nissan Leaf/Tesla cars for three years..since going renewable...


    no explosions so far..



    but then they had no explosions with petrol ICEs before that.

    I ran a CNG (methane ICE) car for 3 years in the 80's ... again.. no explosions.


    "Regarding the risk of electrochemical failure, [this] report concludes that the propensity and severity of fires and explosions from the accidental ignition of flammable electrolytic solvents used in Li-ion battery systems are anticipated to be somewhat comparable to or perhaps slightly less than those for gasoline or diesel vehicular fuels. The overall consequences for Li-ion batteries are expected to be less because of the much smaller amounts of flammable solvent released and burning in a catastrophic failure situation.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ic_vehicle_fire_incidents


  • Diesel will not explode, petrol will agreed. These explosions only happen when there is a serious impact, maybe due to some build up of hydrogen in defective cells leaking out and mixing with air in the confined battery space. Could be a deathtrap if unvented ? I dont know.

  • Any way did anyone catch the SPACE X launch scheduled today I missed it because I've been too busy to catch the news. Very brave men to do this. I just hope there is a star ship to rescue them if anything does go wrong. We are not the only humans it this infinite and eternal Galaxy. Just listen to David Bowie.

  • Here is a good analysis, with data and graphs from the EIA. This trend has accelerated this year because of the coronavirus.


    https://www.renewableenergywor…t-time-in-over-130-years/


    U.S. renewable energy consumption surpasses coal for the first time in over 130 years

    In 2019, U.S. annual energy consumption from renewable sources exceeded coal consumption for the first time since before 1885, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Monthly Energy Review. This outcome mainly reflects the continued decline in the amount of coal used for electricity generation over the past decade as well as growth in renewable energy, mostly from wind and solar. Compared with 2018, coal consumption in the United States decreased nearly 15%, and total renewable energy consumption grew by 1%.

  • News reports said that because of the coronavirus, electricity production is down, and for that reason, renewables produced more electricity than coal. It turns out that in January and February 2020, renewables had already edged out coal in U.S. electric power generation sector, even though the virus did not have much effect in February. That is what the latest EIA stats show:


    https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7.pdf


    See Table 7.2a:


    Coal: 121,227 billion KWh


    Hydro: 49,363

    Solar: 10,207

    Wind: 57,638

    Various others: 11,984

    Total renewable: 129,192


    When you include other sectors such as transportation, and you count ethanol as a renewable, renewables produced significantly more than coal. I don't count ethanol as a renewable because Pimentel makes a good case that it is an energy sink, not a source.


    In the above message, renewables in 2019 edged out coal, but that was in all sectors, not in electricity alone. Again, that was if you include ethanol, and also waste and wood.


    These stats come from industry sources. I think they are reliable.

  • When you include other sectors such as transportation, and you count ethanol as a renewable, renewables produced significantly more than coal.


    US-Ethanol is not renewable- just gets a stamp by politics. Further each ethanol tank filling kills one live in Africa due to the higher price he farmer gets for is fuel-corn. Only the German approach to clean Diesel by the help of the fantasy name product called "add blue" is more inhuman than US Ethanol. "add blue" simply is highly concentrated fertilizer and one tank of it also kills an African family...

    Euphemism is the worst use of words with a positive notion. Aren't hot breeders renewables...

  • US-Ethanol is not renewable- just gets a stamp by politics. Further each ethanol tank filling kills one live in Africa due to the higher price he farmer gets for is fuel-corn.


    That's what I said.


    Note that ethanol is not used to generate electricity, thank goodness. Don't talk about that. Let's not give the big agriculture lobby any new ideas.

  • Coal: 121,227 billion KWh

    There is a recent report on subsidised coal in the US..

    The Coal Bailout Nobody is Talking About

    JOSEPH DANIEL, SENIOR ENERGY ANALYST | SEPTEMBER 24, 2018, 10:27 AM EDT


    I think Australai has a simlar problem..... the state of NSW is thw worst byt Covid has not affected Coal..still running at 90% of the fuel input... not much wind/solar.

    https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-…ta-nem/data-dashboard-nem




    https://blog.ucsusa.org/joseph…t-nobody-is-talking-about


    "The latest results suggest that, across the four coal-heavy energy markets, coal-fired power plants incurred $4.6 billion in market losses over the past 3 years or $1.5 billion dollars in market losses each year. Most of these “losses” were incurred by power plants owned by monopoly utilities and are not absorbed by the investors or owners. Rather, those costs were likely covered by customers. Consequently, I estimate this practice places a least a $1 billion burden on utility ratepayers each year."

  • Since the fossil fuel, PWRs and agriculture based energy lobbies argue about stable baseload fuel based sources, the stimulus/tax cuts they would get should go straight to new sources in that category. Earmark grant or bailout money so it has to have a certain amount spent on cutting edge chemical/atomic energy. Even better have research efficiency and public experiment result quotas required for the R&D for gov't support. Following assistance package amounts would be dependant on how much progress/creativity the R&D divisions produce. Speed of dynamic customer stream trickle down would also be a factor. So energy conglomerates that transfer over to superior tech while sharing research fundamentals publicly are rewarded by the system. It's pretty much tax paying community service.

  • COVID-19 Global Economic Downturn not Affecting CO2 Rise: May 2020 Update The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data continue to show no reduction in the rate of rise despite to the recent global economic slowdown. This demonstrates how difficult it is to reduce global CO2 emissions without causing a major disruption to the global economy and exacerbation of poverty.

    Even after removal of the strong seasonal cycle in Mauna Loa CO2 data, and a first order estimate of the CO2 influence of El Nino and La Nina activity (ENSO), the May 2020 update shows no indication of a reduction in the rate of rise in the last few months, when the reduction in economic activity should have shown up.


    We shouldn't get suprised with it at all: the similar situation did already happen after global 2008 financial crisis which did cost the U.S. economy more than $22 trillion. This crisis leaved huge dent in the trend of fossil fuel consumption. But this dent wasn't visible on the trend of carbon dioxide levels at all - it just means, the carbon dioxide trend is not driven by human consumption of fossil fuels at all. Even some alarmists itself realized it already - unfortunately most of them are profit driven and they prefer to take multi-billion dollars subsidizes for their "fight" with "anthropogenic" global warming. The profit based and occupation driven thinking is nowadays religion. See also: Carbon tax and "renewables" only make impact of climatic changes worse 1, 2, 3, 4,

    Geothermal theory of global warming 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  • Dr. Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM: “How can we emit more than twice the amount of CO2 than the rate that CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, without the increase being due to our emissions?”. Because the natural emissions are many times greater than our emissions. Therefore the bulk of the increase in CO2 accumulation must be due to natural emissions. If our contribution to total CO2 input is only 4% then our contribution to any increase in CO2 can only be 4%.


    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims human emissions raised the carbon dioxide level from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, or 130 ppm. The IPCC agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent of today’s total.


    Total weight of Earth atmosphere is about 5.15x1018 kg and the content of CO2 in it rises by one ppm of CO2 = 5.15x1012 kg of carbon yearly. Total consumption of carbon is about 6x1011 kg yearly, i.e. by whole one order lower. How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30 percent of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t. Even if IPPC would be completely correct and human emissions cause 30 percent of atmosphere carbon dioxide rise, then we still couldn't reverse greenhouse effect - we could only slow-down it by one third.


    So that even if we would eliminate the global fossil fuel consumption as drastically, as during last financial crisis, then the carbon dioxide levels would still grow in an unattenuated rate.

    These are very simple numbers, which everyone could check a long time ago already - if only he really would want to do it.