LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • sam12


    Sometimes you might want to do that, but in this case not, since my colleague and I are both very familiar with the theory the idea is based on, and have seen similar claims about very similar (in fact almost identical) arrangements in the past. This 'pre-saturation' effect, for example will cause a 'doubly salient' electric motor to speed up and reduce its power demand if you put a strong magnet near the casing. This has been claimed as an amazing way to increase efficiency. Not at all, sure the motor goes faster, sure it pulls fewer Amps. But you also get less torque. In an electric motor, torque is a cross-product of current, current is a cross product of torque.

  • Quote

    Again Zephir, you deny all the research studies on energy payback time?



    Again, do you want to deny reports like these ones? Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns, What happens with German renewables in the dead of winter? Sometimes, a Greener Grid Means a 40,000% Spike in Power Prices


    How some "perpetuum mobile", which should pay itself in 6 - 8 months (as it's claimed about wind plants) could ever suffer by lack of money? How such a device could even raise the price of electricity? The payback period of nuclear plants is some twenty / thirty years - and yet they still prosper (if we ignore fear from nuclear accidents here and there)...!


    Nope, I don't deny any of research studies on energy payback time of "renewables". I simply care only about real financial results.

  • Quote

    Say there is overunity. Why, according to Haines, it to s very hard to have simple driver-generator system with positive net energy output. In the videos he claims 80% gains



    Maybe the key is in the word "simple", as such generator must be apparently finely tuned. IMO Thane Heins claimed overunity (i.e. 100%+ gain from very beginning of his research (at least from 2008 year), but he didn't provide any details, so that I merely ignored his progress.

  • Quote

    Fossil fuel consumption, especially coal, is declining rapidly in the first world.


    Because raw source for "renewables" aren't produced in first world. The USA don't mine neodymium, indium, lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper or palm oil for its "renewables" near New York. Great Britain doesn't burn its own wood and so on.. First world just tries to get clean and independent into account of second and third worlds, which get dirty and unsustainable the more. But the atmosphere and life environment of all countries are still connected vessels. What USA save on coal, they waste in form of shale gas, Canadian oil and imports of raw sources from the whole world.

  • Great Britain has now gone more than 18 days without coal-fired generation, thanks to sunny weather and low demand. National Grid ESO announced the news this morning (28 April), as the previous record of 18 days, 6 hours and 10 minutes set last May, was broken at 6:10am. There has now been over 438 hours since the fossil fuel generated any power in the country’s electricity network.




    https://www.current-news.co.uk…%20broken%20at%206%3A10am.

  • Because raw source for "renewables" aren't produced in first world. The USA don't mine neodymium, indium, lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper or palm oil for its "renewables" near New York.


    Mining these things does not take a lot of energy. If it took as much energy as you imagine, they would cost much more than they do. Mining in the third world does not violate the laws of economics. You cannot sell indium, lithium and other materials that pay back the cost in a few months selling energy if it takes years of energy to extract and process them. They would cost much more than the wind turbine earns in a few months. Energy costs are roughly the same everywhere in the world. If it costs X megawatt-hours to extract indium in the third world, the people there cannot turn around and sell it someone in the U.S. who makes a turbine that takes many years to produce X megawatt-hours, yet who manages to pay for the turbine in a few months. Someone, somewhere in the chain of transactions would lose a huge amount of money.


    Suppose it costs me $1 million worth of energy to make indium and the other materials. I sell it them to you. You make a wind turbine that earns $10,000 a month. It should take 100 months just for you to earn enough to pay me back. Yet you manage to pay everyone back in 6 months to a year. You pay everyone, for all materials and labor, not just me and my third world mining company. That can only happen if I sell to you at a terrific loss. Third world mining companies do not operate at a loss. U.S. coal companies do, which is why they are going bankrupt one after the other.


    Market prices are not a perfect way to keep track of what things cost and how much embodied energy they have, or how much embodied labor they have. Market prices can be distorted by various factors. For example, a mineral might have a large, built-in, invisible cost of pollution at the mining site. It sickens people and destroys the water table and agriculture, but the mining company does not pay for that, because they bribe government officials. So, there can be distortion, but there are limits to how distorted things can be. You can bribe every official in a country, but you still will not find a way to sell me $1 million worth of materials that I manage to pay for with a few hundred thousand dollars. You would have to be losing money to do that.

  • Great Britain has now gone more than 18 days without coal-fired generation, thanks to sunny weather and low demand. National Grid ESO announced the news this morning (28 April), as the previous record of 18 days, 6 hours and 10 minutes set last May, was broken at 6:10am. There has now been over 438 hours since the fossil fuel generated any power in the country’s electricity network.

    https://www.current-news.co.uk…%20broken%20at%206%3A10am.

    This is amazing. But could this happen everywhere?


  • Mining these things does not take a lot of energy. If it took as much energy as you imagine, they would cost much more than they do. Mining in the third world does not violate the laws of economics. You cannot sell indium, lithium and other materials that pay back the cost in a few months selling energy if it takes years of energy to extract and process them. They would cost much more than the wind turbine earns in a few months. Energy costs are roughly the same everywhere in the world.

    Market prices are not a perfect way to keep track of what things cost and how much embodied energy they have, or how much embodied labor they have. Market prices can be distorted by various factors.

    What bothers me is that the environmental costs are not shown in the purely financial analysis. Market prices are distorted by missing a big chunk of cost by thinking everything in nature is free. The debt of fossil fuels isn't housed at the bank; it's paid by wildlife, our rivers and oceans. Measure the true cost by including the loss of habitat, mass extinction, pollution with dirty water and air, carcinogens, and a host of other consequences. "Paper" money is the illusion! Nature is the reality and the real measure of cost. Am I the only treehugger here???

  • What bothers me is that the environmental costs are not shown in the purely financial analysis. Market prices are distorted by missing a big chunk of cost by thinking everything in nature is free. The debt of fossil fuels isn't housed at the bank; it's paid by wildlife, our rivers and oceans. Measure the true cost by including the loss of habitat, mass extinction, pollution with dirty water and air, carcinogens, and a host of other consequences. "Paper" money is the illusion! Nature is the reality and the real measure of cost. Am I the only treehugger here???

    Environment maintanance is definately important, the true value of these losses are priceless. Even on the money illusion front something like a metal value backed cryptocurrency would work wonders. So you could use money pegged on the value of reactant substances used in clean energy reactors. Blockchain cryptocurrencies pegged on coinage transition metals, silver and nickel, could prove exceptionally valuable and stable. Also, factoring in that such cryptocurrency's metals likely have a direct high density energetic fuel value potencial. You could stamp metal coins/bullion with QR code and crypto coin key tags containing value. The money wouldn't float on what a government or foreign interest pegs/prints it. But it would allow for solid values propped on pressious/coinage metals' practical value, energetically, technologically and through the lens of ornamental sense. Someone once had the despicable idea of making a petro cryptocoin. Use theoretically energy dense metal as a value holding practically useful commodity. A little off topic, rant over.

  • Again, do you want to deny reports like these ones? Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns, What happens with German renewables in the dead of winter? Sometimes, a Greener Grid Means a 40,000% Spike in Power Prices


    How some "perpetuum mobile", which should pay itself in 6 - 8 months (as it's claimed about wind plants) could ever suffer by lack of money? How such a device could even raise the price of electricity? The payback period of nuclear plants is some twenty / thirty years - and yet they still prosper (if we ignore fear from nuclear accidents here and there)...!


    Nope, I don't deny any of research studies on energy payback time of "renewables". I simply care only about real financial results.

    Zephir, you misunderstand.


    You mix ENERGY payback period with MONETARY payback period.


    My referral was to energy payback. Since you think rebewables increase fossil fuel consumption, I explained the consesus on CO2 payback time for wind power.


    For Solar the ENERGY payback is a litle longer than wind, but not more than some additional 6 months as I remember.


    Now then, if you want to discuss economics and subsidies we can do that also, but that was not the issue here.

  • Quote

    You mix ENERGY payback period with MONETARY payback period.



    Could we agree, that price of product or service expresses amount of net energy expenditure required for generation product or service? I already explained this economical theory multiple times here. That means, it doesn't matter if the price of energy includes recycling or bribes of officials or whatever else or not: once it must be paid, then it represents volume of energy, consumed during production of product (wind plant electricity for example) by all adjacent processes altogether.

  • For example price of gold is high because its production requires large amount of energy on background.

    Well - and the price of "renewables" is high from the very same reason: they're energy costly and once they must be subsidized, then their COP < 1 - no matter what various studies, which don't include all external energy inputs say. For example, once price of "renewable" electricity gets high for its consumers, because it needs backup of another types of power plants, it just means, that the energy which these plants consume has been also involved in the final price.

    ...

    ....

    The resume is, once "renewable" electricity is supposed to save fossil fuel electricity, it must get cheaper than fossil fuel electricity, which means it should decrease prices of electricity instead of increase. Or it will be fossil fuels, which would subsidize the "renewables" - not vice versa. And from this very moment the utilization of "renewables" would increase net consumption of fossil fuels instead of decrease. If we cannot generate renewable energy by some cheaper way than this fossil one, then it would be better not to produce it at all.

  • For example price of gold is high because its production requires large amount of energy on background.

    completely and utterly wrong.


    The price of gold has NOTHING to do with energy requirements for production.


    On the contrary, the DEMAND is keeping the price such that it is profitable to mine low grade ore, i.e. ore that may have high energy requirement pr. Unit gold.


    It is the balance between supply and demand that set the prices. Just as most other commodities.


    And the Market price of power now makes it very profitable to install large solar arrays without any subsidies in a growing number of places.

  • Gold is a speculative commodity. It's price bears little relationship to anything real, in fact the gold price is set by a committee of the great and the good which confers daily in London to set the price. Gold is actually much less useful than common brass.

  • Quote

    It is supply and demand balance that set the prices. Basis economic theory and practice.



    No problem: in dense aether model supply and demand equilibrium is essentially energetic balance equilibrium.


    Quote

    Gold is actually much less useful than common brass


    It's corrosion proof, so if we could produce it in large quantities, it would be most widespread metal used everywhere at least for coatings. In my country one redneck has stolen waste platinum mesh used for ammonia production catalysis waiting for recycling. The police from whole district has been involved in its searching. When they finally found it, it turned out that all this platinum has been used as chicken wire for rabbit hutch: this good man was completely unaware of its actual price. But he still praised it loudly as a "best stainless steel, which he ever got".


    So much for actual usage of rare metals.

  • The resume is, once "renewable" electricity is supposed to save fossil fuel electricity, it must get cheaper than fossil fuel electricity, which means it should decrease prices of electricity instead of increase. ...


    If we cannot generate renewable energy by some cheaper way than this fossil one, then it would be better not to produce it at all.

    You misunderstand what set the Market price of electricity.


    -Economic growth will increase electricity demand. The market price of power will then increase is market cannot offer more electricity..


    Population growth will increase electricity demand. The market price of power will increase if the Market cannot increase supply enough.


    So you see, the Market do not care where the electrons come from, coal power og renewables.


    There is one market price of power that varies with supply and demand.


    No then, the profitability of an energy source depends on CAPEX investment for the source and the Market price of power.


    And that is the point. Uk offshore bottom fixed large wind turbines now are profitable at the market price of power in UK, meaning those projects cam be built without government support.


    And CO2 pay back time is a different issue as explained. Only months to pay back all energy that went into the project.

  • Quote

    Population growth will increase electricity demand. The market price of power will the increase is the Market cannot increase supply enough.


    Nope, this price will increase, because more electricity will be consumed. At given technology level it would require to use more energetically demanding methods for its production.

    If the price of electricity would rise without increasing consumption, then it wouldn't follow price-demand equilibrium.

  • Population growth will increase electricity demand. The market price of power will the increase is the Market cannot increase supply enough.


    Nope, this price will increase, because more electricity will be consumed. At given technology level it would require to use more energetically demanding methods for its production.

    If the price of electricity would rise without increasing consumption, then it wouldn't follow price-demand equilibrium.

    I see autocorrection kicked in again. And this is what the centence should be


    "The market price of power will increase if the Market cannot increase supply enough."


    So er agree, and you understand the mechanism of supply and demand setting the prices.