LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from RobertBryant

its an old quarry turned into a lake. In Japan many solar arrays are on lakes

There are apparently good reasons to cover up water:

It may reduce water temp, algae growth, and toxin formation.

I have often seen fish clustered under the shadows of docked boats in the summer daytime, so I assume some fish like the shade.

Quote from rubycarat

This is certainly off topic for this thread, but one last thought! With breakthrough energy, according to Marshall McLuhan, our mental imprint will change too. We won't be the same people we were, or are, now. That doesn't mean we'll magically all be mentally healthy perfect people, but we're certain to have different values. In the same way that digital technology has altered identity and class and values, and empowering marginal groups that were previously ignored, and we are now a different people with different mentalities (most of us!). I'm not a big fan of crypto-currencies, but I don't know a lot about crypto tied to metals either. But if we have all the energy we need to have food and shelter, I could see only those pre-disposed to gambling would want to play with crypto-currencies. A lot of people would do things that they enjoy.

Money has grown up alongside writing, and actually there is a theory that money is a consequence of writing. Cultures have existed without money in the past, so we know it's not a necessary item in all circumstances, and maybe not the future, a long long way from now sadly. I need to get my hands on some of that cash to reduce the "friction of rent"!

A little of topic yes, but interesting don't you think in relation to the system surrounding potencial green energy solutions. Cryptocurrencies backed by metal aren't gambling, in fact it would be likely more stable than current globally traded fiat currencies. This isn't about trading volatile coins like risky stocks.

How does this relate to alternative energy particularly the LENR "cold fusion", pico-chemistry or Hydrino veriety? Metals have a more stable practical value through the flow of electronic technology. Metals are not only catalysts and accepting of resonant energy transfers but are consumable reactants in hydrogen metal power systems experimented on in the last century. Isotopically/chemically stable transition metals that aren't extremely common have been value holders from the dawn of human history. The practical value of metal as energy storage, energy source feedstock and a physical universal value measuring stick when linked with cryptocurrencies, peer to peer transactions and the decentralised blockchain is astounding. Cheap energy broadens the scope of trade/economy above necessities.

The love of money and it's use to manipulate the ignorant through debt is the problem. Having a future means of value trade/storage backed by multiple metals with stable value, compatible with a digital democratic society, isn't something we should fight against. Stuff like nessasary sustanance, running water and shelter could be guaranteed with cheap energy. People will still work, push, strive for and trade for growth same way.

Quote from LeBob

Cryptocurrencies backed by metal aren't gambling, in fact it would be likely more stable than current globally traded fiat currencies.

I do not understand why you think the value of a metals is inherently stable. We can always find more metal. We can always invent better ways to mine or recover a metal, or recycle it. If, for some reason, people want a lot more gold, titanium, aluminum or palladium, there is plenty more in the earth. For that matter, some metals are common in the oceans. There is billions of times more metal in the rest of the solar system. It is readily accessible in asteroids. See:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/s…e-mining-boom-ncna1027971

If a demand for these metals arises, people will invent ways to mine asteroids, and the cost per gram will eventually fall by a factor of 10, and then a factor of 100, and then a million. There is no permanent, unchanging value to any materials, or any goods or services. The cost of anything can be drastically reduced. All it takes is intelligence. Science, that is. Resources in the solar system are essentially unlimited on a human scale. I mean that as long as our species survives, we will never run out of resources as long as we keep thinking. In a sense, fiat metal is created as easily as fiat currency. It is willed into our presence. It exists everywhere in the solar system, in unthinkably large amounts. We just have to decide to bring it to our doorsteps. We can have enough gold to pave the streets with it, if it turns out to be good paving material.

Eventually, industrial scale transmutation might be possible, which would make any element as cheap as any other.

Quote from JedRothwell

Eventually, industrial scale transmutation might be possible, which would make any element as cheap as any other.

Looking beyond that, perhaps in a few hundred thousand years, we can build a Dyson sphere, capture the particles from the sun (1.3 million tons per second), and transmute them into whatever suits us. Anyone who wants a million tons of gold will be able to get it with as little thought, effort and expense as it takes you to get a gallon of water today.

Even in the present day, the cost of a metal, and the value of a metal, is very much dependent on what what people do, and think, and how they innovate. It is not fixed.

Quote from JedRothwell

Looking beyond that, perhaps in a few hundred thousand years, we can build a Dyson sphere, capture the particles from the sun (1.3 million tons per second), and transmute them into whatever suits us. Anyone who wants a million tons of gold will be able to get it with as little thought, effort and expense as it takes you to get a gallon of water today.

Even in the present day, the cost of a metal, and the value of a metal, is very much dependent on what what people do, and think, and how they innovate. It is not fixed.

Your assuming that all scarcity completely disappears. Energy has value, human aesthetic/symbolic sentiments have value, and valuable technological raw elements have value. Though certain metals do have an inherent value cause their percentage of mass in the solar system is relatively sparse compared to elements like hydrogen, oxygen, silicon and iron.

Five U.S. Tech Firms named in U.S. lawsuit regarding Congolese child deaths in cobalt mining

white leftist progressives benefit from racist neo-colonialism the most

Child exploitation is not limited to cobalt in the DRC

but extends to Indian rugs and chocolate boba..

https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a8590.html

however lithium ion batteries are beneficial for the DRC..

"

Before installing a photovoltaic system in Kigulube hospital, MSF opened its first solar-powered hospital in South Kivu a year ago, in the Kusisa area in the mountainous Ziralo region.

The installation at each of the two hospitals consists of 100 solar panels and seven batteries capable of accumulating the necessary energy to run the facilities for two full days

. Each of these storage units has a lifespan of at least five years, although it may be two or three times longer. "

https://reliefweb.int/report/d…democratic-republic-congo

Elon Musk's Battery Day to be delayed till August

A gamechanger day for the petrol ICE car

Will the million mile battery be based on Dahn's single crystal nickel-graphite cells？

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/2.0981913jes/pdf

Note... the NMC is Made in China.

"

Pouch cells.—Dry (no electrolyte) and sealedLi[Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2]O2 (NMC532)

/graphite pouch cells were obtained from Li-FUN Technology, Hunan Province,
China,). These were coated NMC532/artificial graphite
(240 mAh at 4.3 V). The NMC532 used in these cells was

single crystal NMC532 as described by Li et al. with a Ti-based coating
as described by Ma et al.

The artificial graphite used was Kaijin AML-400 from Kaijin, China.

Virginia’s latest folly — offshore wind power The Virginia plan is calling for a massive and incredibly expensive offshore wind generating facility, at high risk of failure, that will produce no power whatever when it is needed most.

It's essentially kind of steal or defraudation of tax payers money. "Renewables" still generate energy more expensively than classical sources in general. What's worse, even at the moment, when they would generate some profit, these savings get burrowed in their expensive "remote administration"/"electricity distribution", which goes after companies, who ask for governmental subsidies at the same moment under "development of infrastructure" as a pretence (i.e. they steal money double times). Despite that average wind plant should pay itself in six-eight months, these companies claimed their lifetime to be thirty years at minimum and they "lack" money for their scrapping even after ten years and they ask for subsidizes again. Now it turns out, that without subsidizes the win plants cannot run by itself at all and they must me dismantled prematurely, even before end of technical lifetime. And wind plants are lucky to last ten years!

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Despite that average wind plant should pay itself in six-eight months, these companies claimed their lifetime to be thirty years at minimum and they "lack" money for their scrapping even after ten years and they ask for subsidizes again. Now it turns out, that without subsidizes the win plants cannot run by itself at all and they must me dismantled prematurely, even before end of technical lifetime. And wind plants are lucky to last ten years

You always mix outdated stuff with new one like the usual tax/investment fraud we see everywhere in the world.

e.g. BER airport 6 billion fraud by free masons mafia German telecom 30 years 2 Billion bond with 8% return just for the friends of MRJB mafia. 150 mio. year give away. or 4.5Bio damage Siemens deal for wind park. 10% rebate for Diesel in Germany damage (lost taxes) > 50 billionm Cum Ex.. etcccc...

Thus do not mix technique with politics. A windmill has no 30 year live time. The tower has 100years live time the generator about 10 years and the blades about 30 years. Depending on the product chosen you have to calculate with 1-3% of investment for maintenance .

In ten years no more bulk energy plants will beneeded due to the fact as accumulators (or fuel cells) now tend to do up to 10'000 load and store cycles.

With distributed storage the total cost for transmission lines will go down too.

You should start to understand how things work together,

Quote from LeBob

Your assuming that all scarcity completely disappears.

A hundred thousand years from now, yes. However, my point is that the value of any particular commodity is not fixed. Whether the commodity is scarce or abundant, you can always get more of it. If we want more gold at a lower cost, we can get that. So, if we peg the value of money on gold, that is no more "fixed" than it would be for fiat money.

Arthur Clarke once suggested we should peg money on kilojoules of energy. That makes as much sense as gold, but it might as well be marigolds, or buttercups.

In the past, commodities such as gold were very difficult to extract, and there was a de facto low limit to how much we could mine. There is, of course, still a limit, and there always will be. But it is more flexible than it used to be, because our technology has improved, and our choices about where and how to extract it have improved. If there was enough demand I think it is very likely that in 40 years we could have large scale asteroid mining of gold. That would have to be real demand. Not the "artificial" demand caused by pegging the value of money to gold. I say that is artificial because it could be changed overnight by government fiat, making marigolds the standard instead of metal gold. The next morning there would be a giant pile of useless gold and many asteroid mining projects put on hold. Whereas -- to make up an imaginary example -- suppose we discovered that gold is needed for practical large-scale quantum computing. That would be a demand for gold for practical purposes.

Quote from LeBob

Though certain metals do have an inherent value cause their percentage of mass in the solar system is relatively sparse compared to elements like hydrogen, oxygen, silicon and iron.

Even if gold in the solar system is a trillion times less abundant than iron, there is still gigantic amounts of it. There may be enough iron to give every person his own personal mini-planet, whereas there may only be enough gold to give everyone a small mountain of gold. So what?

In any case, I expect that eventually, industrial scale transmutation will make gold as cheap and abundant as hydrogen or iron. We could convert the whole of Jupiter into a large lump of gold. But I am sure nature preservationists would object -- as they should. Industrial scale transmutation may be in the distant future . . . or maybe not so distant, if certain cold fusion experiments can be improved.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The tower has 100years live time the generator about 10 years and the blades about 30 years.

I am not necessarily against wind turbines / wind farms. However, like much information here, the reported life span on wind turbines is total propaganda hype.

We have a 200+ unit wind farm less than 15 miles from my business. It is about 5 years old, so not "old technology"

My business provides some services to the repair crews that service this farm. They are here on a constant basis, replacing blades, bearings and other "non-consumable" components. Sometimes blades are damaged due to lightening strikes, however by far, the majority are from simple structure failure and wear.

While I have no evidence or data on how long a tower lasts, I can absolutely say from real world observation, that the blades and bearings last no where near 30 years for blades and bearing etc. often fail in 2!

Some here may cite "sources" but I am looking at feet on the ground. The costs of maintaining these farms, as told by the maintenance crews themselves, is so high (and under reported) it is crazy. The mammoth cranes used to pull a blade have a $250,000 travel and setup charge alone, using 12 semi trailers to transport. Again, this came from the crane company foreman himself and does not include the other repair companies involved, just the crane. The repair companies I deal with all joke about how much it costs to keep these towers running and how the costing system is so bogus.

So, as often the case, one cannot believe what is reported on the internet or even "reliable" sources. Wind farms have HUGE maintenance costs as I can attest personally. Then the costs of land fill and future dismantlement? Who knows.

Just like nuclear plants, still holding spent radioactive fuel from 40 years ago... the true costs have not even been scratched yet!

"

“So Casper happens to be, I think it is, the biggest landfill facility in the state of Wyoming. These blades are really big, and they take up a lot of airspace, and our unlined area is very, very large, and it’s going to last hundreds of years.”

As if that’s not bad enough, NPR reports researchers estimate the US will soon have to grapple with over 720,000 tons of blades over the next 20 years, “a figure that doesn’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions.”

https://www.educationviews.org…able-wind-turbine-blades/

So again, all energy generating systems are going to have waste or "hidden" costs and again note that I am not necessarily 100% against wind farms. It is just that the true story is not being told and there will be a significant cost to be had in the (near?) future. The rosy picture is BS generated by an industry with huge profit to be made from the spinning of "green technology"! (I am NOT against profit, just against lies or mis-information)

So wind farms are certainly not the panacea some would paint. I am unsure if they are even close to it... a lot of false information out there.

Quote from Bob#2

My business provides some services to the repair crews that service this farm. They are here on a constant basis, replacing blades, bearings and other "non-consumable" components. Sometimes blades are damaged due to lightening strikes, however by far, the majority are from simple structure failure and wear.

Quote from Bob#2

While I have no evidence or data on how long a tower lasts, I can absolutely say from real world observation, that the blades and bearings last no where near 30 years for blades and bearing etc. often fail in 2!

How does that compare to the failure rate at a coal or natural gas generator? I wouldn't know, but EPRI does know, and they say maintenance costs per megawatt hour is lower for wind turbines than for fossil fuel. I believe the main reason is that conditions are less extreme with most wind turbines. Temperatures, the RPM speed of the turbine, and other factors are less extreme.

Some machines do wear out sooner than they are supposed to. Automobile engines and transmissions are extremely reliable and they are manufactured in far greater numbers than any other heavy-duty machine. Yet, I once had a transmission wear out in a few years, because of a manufacturing fault.

Quote from Bob#2

So wind farms are certainly not the panacea some would paint. I am unsure if they are even close to it... a lot of false information out there.

There is a great deal more false information out there regarding fossil fuel. You seldom hear that coal kills thousands of Americans with smoke. Many people, including the president, deny that fossil fuel causes global warming. Prior to the Fukushima disaster, there was a great deal of false information about conventional fission nuclear power. It was said to be very safe and reliable. That was . . . exaggerated. I would say the quota of dangerous false information for fossil fuel and conventional fission is several orders of magnitude higher than it is for wind energy.

Quote from JedRothwell

That was . . . exaggerated. I would say the quota of dangerous false information for for fossil fuel and conventional fission is several orders of magnitude higher than it is for wind energy.

Very likely true. I did not compare wind to anything other than noting spent nuclear fuel.

My point is that there is much false information. Simply because something has "less lies" does not make it good. It might be better, but still not good or sufficient.

My particular pet peeve is the spreading of information that suits one's agenda, regardless of the truth or validity of it.

If one supports Rossi by either actively posting support OR by subtle "thumbs up" remarks, it accomplishes the same end.... continuing a scam and lie. A false hope and thus propagates his lies and scam. The "omission" of calling Rossi out is in many ways the same as supporting him. (I am not saying you do this, but some on this site do.)

If one paints certain "green technology" as a panacea, then this also fails to give truth or promotes good decisions. While it is almost certainly true that wind farms are much cleaner than coal, that does not mean they are the answer. We need total truth and information to make good decisions. Replacing a "bad" technology with a slightly "better" technology only delays a real, long term solution. Just like those who push for bio-renewable carbon fuels.... it solves nothing long term and is a very bad and misleading path! Even though it claims we would end dependence on oil, this solution is not good!

As I said, I am not against wind farms... I simply doubt that a true picture is being painted and much of it is dis-information to propagate obtaining huge contracts for huge profit. Long term, this technology may have a niche, but likely is not the needed answer.

We should not be delaying the search for true answers by fairy tale stories. It is clear that a wind farm is "better" than a coal fire plant, but it is not clear they are a long term viable answer. It seems the search for that answer is being side tracked by the misinformation of wind farms. Possibly the same in solar. Both very likely niche energy sources, but doubtfully "the energy answer". Stating they last 30 years when it is almost certain they do not, is not helping the real problem.

You often state how much money is needed to develop cold fusion.... if the subsidies and wasted dollars spent on wind farms (and yes, nuclear / fossil fuel as well) were spent on CF, we might very well have had "the answer" by now! So again, I am only stating that false information is bad, regardless if it is about a "better technology" or not. It will not help in finding a true answer,

Quote from Bob#2

My point is that there is much false information. Simply because something has "less lies" does not make it good. It might be better, but still not good or sufficient.

I think there is far less false information about wind. I say that because it has been attacked by the fossil fuel industry and others, exposing vulnerabilities. Any real problem with it, such as the fact that it is intermittent, is well known. There are also widely cited problems such as wind turbines killing birds. They do kill birds, but many orders of magnitude fewer birds than are killed by coal and nuclear plant smoke and steam, by reflective glass on buildings, and by cats.

The issues you described with maintenance and premature wearing out is probably not a significant problem, as far as EPRI knows. What you describe is anecdotal evidence. Meaning, yes, you saw it, and it is real. But it may be limited in scope and unimportant.

Quote from Bob#2

You often state how much money is needed to develop cold fusion.... if the subsidies and wasted dollars spent on wind farms (and yes, nuclear / fossil fuel as well) were spent on CF, we might very well have had "the answer" by now!

Finding "the answer" would take approximately 0.00001% of of the money spent on wind or fossil fuel. Or about as much money as we spend on plasma fusion before breakfast every day. Implementing the answer may take several years of what we spend on these energy sources. By "implement" I mean designing the new equipment, building factories, ensuring safety, passing new regulations for safety and standards, and so on. Replacing the equipment such as furnaces and automobiles will not cost any more than we spend now. It all has to be replaced anyway, as it wears out. Okay, it might cost a little more, because in the last stage, old obsolete equipment can no longer be maintained, so replacement accelerates. See p. 3:

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

...and the blades about 30 years.

...Another fine example of a 'Wyttenfact'?

Quote from Bob#2

While I have no evidence or data on how long a tower lasts, I can absolutely say from real world observation, that the blades and bearings last no where near 30 years for blades and bearing etc. often fail in 2!

Seems a reasonable approximation (counting all failures):

lenr-forum.com/attachment/12951/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/we.2404

Quote from Deleo

I haven't weighed in much on this thread, but I do think that the combination of solar/wind generation with battery storage is the most exciting (or at least hyped) thing going on in the world of solar and wind energy these days.

Either this will take off and become the next big thing or it will be a typical overhyped green energy solution and everyone will lose their shirts in a couple of years. The key is for a battery system to store 1MW for 150 hours. That's the holy grail benchmark-wise. Form Energy, backed by Bill Gates (which everyone here loves) claims they may have done it much sooner than expected with their aqueous air battery system - link below. They are planning to have their first project on-line in 2023. If they pull this off it will be a huge deal for solar/wind.

Just Google Utility Battery Storage Projects and you will see dozens of them going up all over the world.

https://www.greentechmedia.com…heights-150-hour-duration

Here is an article comparing Form and Tesla with their lithium ion batteries

https://cleantechnica.com/2020…r-grid-storage-dominance/

Display More

Agreed. Antara is also interesting. Cheap and long-storage is what we need.

Quote from JedRothwell

What you describe is anecdotal evidence.

The gearboxes on the earlier models appear to have been a weak point ( in the USA)

lenr-forum.com/attachment/12959/

Berkeley U study onwindpower operational expenditures..

https://escholarship.org/conte…9dc62b2b73f3df721d4ea.pdf

These OPEX costs are a lot less than for steam power(especially from coal)

and a lot less than for my ICE car....

3.2 OpEx Expectations vs. Reality

For wind plants built in the more distant past, Figure 1 reports actual realized costs. Survey respondents,
however, consistently indicated that actual OpEx for plants built from the late 1990s through about 2010

were substantially higher than expected OpEx at the time of plant commissioning.

They identified premature component failures, especially of gearboxes, as a notable cause of

these discrepancies during this period of time.

Competitive pressure to attract purchasers and financiers also often resulted in
overly optimistic OpEx forecasts during this timeframe.

As a result, though actual OpEx declined for projects built from 1998 to 2010 due to economies of scale,

improved component reliability and other advancements (Figure 1),

expectations for lifetime OpEx actually increased (not shown in the figure).
One developer, for example, reported an increase in OpEx expectations from $59/kW-yr in 2006 to
$66/kW-yr in 2010. Another reported an increase in expectations from $38/kW-yr in the 2001–2005
period to $61/kW-yr in the 2006–2010 timeframe. Other developers and OEMs confirmed this trend of
increasing OpEx expectations.
Respondents generally portrayed a convergence between actual and expected OpEx occurring around
2010.

Quote from JedRothwell

A hundred thousand years from now, yes. However, my point is that the value of any particular commodity is not fixed. Whether the commodity is scarce or abundant, you can always get more of it. If we want more gold at a lower cost, we can get that. So, if we peg the value of money on gold, that is no more "fixed" than it would be for fiat money.

Arthur Clarke once suggested we should peg money on kilojoules of energy. That makes as much sense as gold, but it might as well be marigolds, or buttercups.

In the past, commodities such as gold were very difficult to extract, and there was a de facto low limit to how much we could mine. There is, of course, still a limit, and there always will be. But it is more flexible than it used to be, because our technology has improved, and our choices about where and how to extract it have improved. If there was enough demand I think it is very likely that in 40 years we could have large scale asteroid mining of gold. That would have to be real demand. Not the "artificial" demand caused by pegging the value of money to gold. I say that is artificial because it could be changed overnight by government fiat, making marigolds the standard instead of metal gold. The next morning there would be a giant pile of useless gold and many asteroid mining projects put on hold. Whereas -- to make up an imaginary example -- suppose we discovered that gold is needed for practical large-scale quantum computing. That would be a demand for gold for practical purposes.

Even if gold in the solar system is a trillion times less abundant than iron, there is still gigantic amounts of it. There may be enough iron to give every person his own personal mini-planet, whereas there may only be enough gold to give everyone a small mountain of gold. So what?

In any case, I expect that eventually, industrial scale transmutation will make gold as cheap and abundant as hydrogen or iron. We could convert the whole of Jupiter into a large lump of gold. But I am sure nature preservationists would object -- as they should. Industrial scale transmutation may be in the distant future . . . or maybe not so distant, if certain cold fusion experiments can be improved.

Display More

I am of the persuasion that the type of low energy transmutation that shouldn't break the coulomb barrier isn't the majority interpretation of these measurements. If you have chemistry like, sub-thermonuclear, electromagnetic means of inducing reactions with the vast majority of reacted atoms producing only electromagnetic energy it isn't quite nuclear. Atleast it's more like a marriage (super intimate union) than two entities being consumed in one, and extinguishing of each.

So genuine artificial compounds that mimic or supercede the properties of rare elements seems more likely than summoning industrial levels of precious elements from Lead and Iron. Different compounds! There also seems to be a fundamentally human socio-psychological benifit o having a solid malleable beautiful anchor for holding value. Precious metals have cultural and historical significance, a value perhaps we saw, the power potencial inside, from tribal herding and subsistance farming days.

Quote from Bob#2

My business provides some services to the repair crews that service this farm. They are here on a constant basis, replacing blades, bearings and other "non-consumable" components. Sometimes blades are damaged due to lightening strikes, however by far, the majority are from simple structure failure and wear.

Who did manufactor teh windmill?

Quote from Zeus46

...Another fine example of a 'Wyttenfact'?

As usual Zephir only sees his always bad story: I just gave the original data of a large mind mill producer something you could find too if you were interested in facts. If I say the generator lasts 10 years then this means after 10 years you need a total replacement. But may be Z. believes lasts is until first failure...

Why do we need to teach the children..all the 1000 reasons why a car does stop?