LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Does anyone have any energy models (excel) that could be a good starting point for semi-bottom up global energy modeling?

Basically looking to do scenario planning but the huge work of wanting to skip the huge work of building something from scratch.

Quote from Shane D.

https://inventions.news/2020-0…-of-renewable-energy.html

"In the case of green machines, they require an estimated 10-fold increase of extracted and processed materials to produce the same amount of energy compared to machines that use hydrocarbons"

"a single electric car with a battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires the extracting and processing of about 500,000 pounds of materials. This is equivalent to five pounds of materials for every mile driven by the car, measured against the battery’s life. In comparison, an internal combustion engine will need about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile."

"an electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphones while the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than five million smartphones. In addition, a solar array powering one data center has more glass than 50 million phones."

"100 barrels of oil are needed to manufacture a single battery that, when converted, stores only one barrel of oil."

Display More

After we see the recent posts on Extiel's and BLP's plasma reactor approaches, I wonder why the least efficient green tech is still called green on a forum like this? Those are cool approaches that seem able to accomplish the same ends as LENR.

Quote from Navid

any energy models (excel) that could be a good starting point for semi-bottom up global energy modeling?

No

this is for countries

https://www.worldbank.org/cont…nventory-Spreadsheet.xlsx

Maybe plexos has something

https://energyexemplar.com/plexos-world/

Quote from Shane D.

"an electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphones while the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than five million smartphones. In addition, a solar array powering one data center has more glass than 50 million phones."

Without context these numbers mean nothing. You have to consider several things:

1. Is there a shortage of cobalt? Has the price been driven up by electric cars? If 100% of cars were electric would there be a shortage? If not, this makes no difference. You might as well say that a gasoline car uses as much steel as a million cell phones. It probably does, since the only steel in a cell phone are the screws, but there are unlimited supplies of iron ore and steel can be recycled. So can cobalt.

2. Glass is made from sand, and there is not likely to be a shortage of it because of wind turbine blades. They cannot be recycled cost effectively, but that might change.

3. Do wind turbines consume more materials than coal, natural gas, nuclear or solar? Are the materials they consume more valuable, or in short supply? Does the extraction or use of these materials cause more harm than other energy sources? Not as far as I know. Nothing consumes more than coal electricity, when you count the coal. Coal causes tremendous harm in the air and in ash, whereas scrapped wind turbine blades cause no harm.

4. Are the materials in electric cars in short supply compared to the materials in conventional gasoline cars? I don't think so. The price of the cars does not reflect that. I have seen no projections that making 100% of cars electric would deplete any particular resource, or drive up the cost of one.

5. Conventional gasoline cars deplete oil, which is a finite resource. It also causes great harm, and it costs about 5 to 10 times more per mile than electricity. Infinitely more if you live in Texas and recharge at night.

First day Future Energy Conference.

Second day with Edmund Storms

blocked on You Tube.

Bob Greenyer  vibrator !9 hours ago

It is annoying, in the last presentation, by the conference host, a section from the history channel was played (which is already elsewhere uploaded to YT) and this caused an AI copyright strike, they even stopped the stream broadcasting for a while - the systems are getting real good at copyright culling, when the AI systems are good enough, they will be able to stop live broadcasting of any wrong-think altogether.

Quote from Shane D.

Could the "new source of energy" be nuclear?...

Has Berkeley U started up yet...?

I am sure Robert Godes has a solution in 2 years time.

2.5 gigawatts should be enough...that's quite a few boilers.

or four more of the largest hydrodams.

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

Some new technology might have a profound impact on global warming, including some that a person might not realize can improve things. To me, one of the most interesting examples is in vitro meat production. This would greatly reduce the amount of land needed to grow food, and the energy and water needed. It is much faster than growing a cow, and it takes less space. One of the researchers told me the machines take up roughly as much as space and about as much energy and time per gram of nutrition as a machine to culture tofu, or cheese. It is a similar cellular level process. It is sometimes called "cultured meat."

There are various estimates of how much land is devoted to growing animal feed. Some land can only be used for grazing animals, so this is a complicated issue. Regardless, all of the estimates show that a tremendous amount of farmland is devoted to animal feed, especially in the U.S. Some estimates show that this land could feed 3.5 billion people. See:

https://www.globalagriculture.…meat-and-animal-feed.html

This is complicated, because in vitro production also needs input from crops. But nowhere near as much.

By combining this technology with indoor farming, we could feed a larger population using much less land. We could plant trees on the land that is freed up, which would sequester carbon. We would use much less energy and water, and much less fossil fuel because electrically powered robotic machinery would replace many tractors and other gasoline powered farm equipment. When indoor food factory technology matures, we might use essentially no land. All of the field crops in the U.S. would fit into greater New York City. (Orchards and perennials would not.)

Feeding the future population is not as much of a challenge as you might think. The population is not expected to grow larger than 10 billion, which it will reach after the present 30-year-old cohort dies. Of course it is possible the under-30 cohort will begin increasing again.

In vitro meat is made from actual animal cells. Not like "Beyond Meat" and "Impossible Burgers" which are made from plants. Those things taste remarkably similar to meat. My wife prefers them to actual meat. But they are not meat, and I suppose people who love the taste of steak, hamburger or chicken will not be satisfied by them. Whereas when in vitro meat is perfected, it is expected to be indistinguishable from animal grown meat. "Expected," but it is a long way from that now, I think. If several billions of dollars were invested in this, it might happen pretty quickly, according to the researchers I talked to. It could go a long way to reducing global warming.

Some people say they will never eat in vitro meat because it is unnatural. Or they fear it will have additives or contamination. Those people may never eat it, but younger people will, mainly because it will be much cheaper. It will also be better for you, with fewer additives and contamination such as feces. People who refuse to eat meat grown in machinery will grow old and die. Meat grown in animals may never disappear, but the amount will be greatly reduced. I expect many adults alive today may refuse to ride in self-driving cars. But the younger generation will be fine with that. Twenty or 30 years after the technology is introduced, people will demand that licensing laws be abolished, and anyone should be allowed to ride in a car by himself, including a 6-year-old child or a blind person. Few people will even know how to drive a car, any more than we know how to ride a horse.

Quote from Max Nozin

Good old nuclear

There never was "good" old nuclear. There always is only dirty, scaring nuclear with 10 thousand of tons of waste/ plant/year.

Greetings from Saphire (first blown Swiss reactor) ,Three miles island,Tschernobyl,Fukushima.

If the wind in Japan would have turned south for one our only half of Japan would be lost today. The wind blew 2 weeks just from the west and all fallout (Full load of at least 10 reactors, cool down tanks!! ) went over the ocean. Fukushima was at least 10x (up to 100x) Tschernobyl if you look at the radioactivity sent out.

Quote from Max Nozin

We all saw burning Zeppelin and yet H2 i back on the stage.

What are you talking about? H2 is not being used for lighter-than-air aircraft.

Windscale video

Another 1957 Nuclear disaster.

ICCF 22 talk on Econlmics of LENR.

Another interesting talk ICCF 22.