In that case, goodbye Mr. Goldes.
LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.
LENR Partners
-
-
Mark, you are going to have to go easy on the free energy stuff. You are giving us a bad name. There are other places you can talk about that.
Yeah,
Ecat World is prime dumping ground’s for this
-
Or as my dad told me,
The odds of the open faced peanut butter and jelly sandwich falling face down on the new carpet are Inversely proportional to the cost of the carpet.
-
The odds of the open faced peanut butter and jelly sandwich falling face down on the new carpet are Inversely proportional to the cost of the carpet.
As an obnoxious pedant, I must point out that the odds are good that any slice of bread will land face down on the floor after falling from the height of an American or European table. Given the size and friction of a modern slice of bread, it usually rotates ~180 degrees during the fall. Try it. You'll see! (I suggest you use a book instead of bread.)
See:
-
-
-
-
Yup. That's who I cited in the above paper.
-
sounds nice. safe and can use conventional infrastructure to keep big oil happy, but will require fuel tank x3-4 the size of gasoline and will additionally increase hydrogen cycle inefficiency which is already miserable enough and behind batteries.
-
Big fan of this channel:
Good breakdown of the hydrogen vs: battery debate as regards ev’s.
External Content m.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
-
India's solar canals
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
A nuclear plant in Texas went off line because of the intense cold. Most of the power failures were caused by problems with natural gas distribution.
See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…kouts-disinformation.html
No, Wind Farms Aren’t the Main Cause of the Texas Blackouts
The state’s widespread electricity failure was largely caused by freezing natural gas pipelines. That didn’t stop advocates for fossil fuels from trying to shift blame.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/n…a0-47cc-9181-f4a45044fcf2
Not behind a paywall:
https://reason.com/2021/02/16/…e-of-texas-power-outages/
Renewable Energy Is Not the Chief Cause of Texas' Power Outages
The vast majority of the shortfall is from failures at fossil fuel-powered plants.
-
The Science of Giant Tesla Coils.
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
The vast majority of the shortfall is from failures at fossil fuel-powered plants.
It should be understood that fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants and wind turbines do work in cold places. If those plants had been in Minnesota, they would be fine. They are not "winterized" in Texas because extreme cold is rare there. It has happened though. In 2011 cold weather interrupted power to millions of people in Texas. The power companies should have done more winterizing, but they didn't. I bet they regret it! They are now losing revenue, sustaining equipment damage, and generating the worst PR is the history of electricity.
-
And how little they understand climate and why it changes/works.
Humor involved ~though now involved they may not think so..
-
-
Saying the blackout is because of failing gas backup, is absolutely true but misleading.
It is admitting that the power worst-case-expected from wind ansdsolar is , as most know in the domain, null or negligible.
EDIT: wind expected 24% of capacity, but delivered from 2 to 18% of capacity. Solar better not talk about it.
Intermittent renewable without massive storage is just a fuel-saver and cannot reduce by a noticeable amount the capacity of controllable source like hydro, nuke or fossils.
Since nuke is controllable (we do load-following in France, helped by hydro of short term unexpected variations, and wind/sun is really challenging that capacity to adapt, not load)
1WG of intermittent renewable requires 1GW of fossil backup and saves 20-30% of fuel.
With nuke, 1GW of intermittent renewable require 1GW of nuclear power, and cost few percent of efficiency and maintenance cost... it is either virtue signaling or just crook financing.
Another cause of the Texas blackout is also the fact that it's grid is isolated for regulatory reasons.
It is absolutely true that with the help of all the gas, coal, oil, nuke, even solar, wind energy from all USA/Canada/Mexico it may have sustained the heavy load, provided the powerlines don't trip (like they menace in EU).
But this is destroying the myth of local energy that intermittent energy love to spread. Nuclear energy is very local, very dense, and hydro is less but sure is, like fossils. But intermittent renewable are based on "foisonnement"(French - dunno the translation, mean when you benefit from uncorrelated production over a wide zone), but this "foisonnement" is nearly mythic in EU grid, as anticyclone can cover, like winter do, the whole Europe. It was estimated, and at best from Spain to Poland, insert trillion$$ in powerlines, it is about 10% of capacity.
In fossil dominated electric mix, you can indeed save 20-30% of fuel with an intermittent renewable similar power installed capacity.
To make intermittent renewable useful in a no-fossil mix, the only solution is huge, mega huge sized dams (STEP). It is proposed as a "hard engineering" challenging proposal " to drown the valley of French city "Grenoble" to store a massive amount of daily solar and some wind energy... A few of this valley should be drowned like the Chinese 3 Valley dam, and some propose the valley of Chamonix...
The cost and volume of storage as battery is above any realism.
Most engineering proposal like concrete blocks and crane are not much better, even if you accept feasibility.
I'm ok with intermittent renewable energy, provided it is sold with the matching storage, in power and in energy capacity.
Hydrogen power to gas plan are not much realistic according to many engineers, even if you plug them on non-intermittent power... It seems the real plan behind the buzz is to make hydrogen from Russian and US Shales gas.
I hope LENR will stop that crazy fashion and ruin the crooks behind.
-
Intermittent renewable without massive storage is just a fuel-saver and cannot reduce by a noticeable amount the capacity of controllable source like hydro, nuke or fossils.
Large scale storage such as pumped hydro or batteries can ameliorate this problem.
The cost and volume of storage as battery is above any realism.
Batteries are rapidly getting much cheaper, because of R&D in electric cars. GM intends to phase out gasoline cars soon. They wouldn't be planning to do that if they did not think batteries will fall in price.
-
OFF Topic.
Does anybody know of a good ammonia-cracking technology?
-
Does anybody know of a good ammonia-cracking technology?
Looks like Ni on Si can do it pretty well at ~600°C but Ruthenium-based catalysis is more efficient :
-
-
