LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from Alan Smith

Well,, 95% of the article is about some new chemical idea using silicon nanopowders - which they say are currently too expensive to use. So they are using some more conventional chemistry right now- not the silicon system they are promoting. I suspect it is powdered aluminium/gallium alloy.

This is rather like showing off a revolutionary electric car and then mentioning (very briefly) that it currently has an IC engine because your electrical magic is too expensive to sell.

There are obvious sings of gold rush and bubbling in hydrogen industry after govts. promised huge money injections.

I can see multiple articles talking about yet another breakthrough in hydrolysis or fuel cell or alternative hydrogen production tech. Those article typically have lots of preaching to the choir and numbers like 10T market for mobile power!!! etc. What they don't have is actual numbers to see how their tech is better than existing. That is why we always have to wonder what they actually doing apart form burning grant money.

In this case , I believe, the idea was to combine silicon powder hydrogen production with high efficiency power cell for things like planes, drones etc. but they don't provide how that is better than traditional jet fuel and turbine.

Well, Max, I have a commercial hydrogen technology that is more profitable than electrolysis, and always green, But getting funding is a problem still. Most of the cash (if not sll) goes to the big players as usual.

Quote from Alan Smith

Well, Max, I have a commercial hydrogen technology that is more profitable than electrolysis, and always green, But getting funding is a problem still. Most of the cash (if not sll) goes to the big players as usual.

That is why I am growing against any government interventions. All they can do is to create bubbles. Renewable subsidy, electrical vehicle subsidy, coal mining subsidy, natural gas conversion etc.

This is a new report from ReThinkx - a think-tank whose work is often very interesting.

The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets

Today we are releasing the second in a series of reports on the dramatic disruption taking place in the energy sector. Our analysis of historical data reveals that, at least since 2010, the leading analyst organizations, including the International Energy Agency (IEA), the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), Wall Street analysts and others have issued inaccurate estimates of the levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) for coal, natural gas and hydro power plants which are used to direct trillions in investment, creating a growing global financial bubble around conventional power plants with dynamics that are similar to the subprime mortgage housing bubble that led to the Great Recession.

Mainstream analysts have systematically overestimated how much electricity conventional power plants will be able to generate and sell in the future, and therefore reported levelized costs of electricity that are far too low, making those power plants appear to be much better investments than they turn out to be. The cause of this error can be traced to the false assumption that capacity factor (i.e. utilization rate) will remain high and constant for a conventional power plant’s entire lifetime. Treating capacity factor as a constant rather than as a variable is a fundamental methodological error. By presuming that a coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro power plant will always be able to sell just as much electricity in the future as it can today, mainstream analysts are essentially ignoring all competition and disruption from solar, wind, and batteries.

When we recalculate LCOE based on actual market data, changing nothing but capacity factor, we see that by 2015 the real LCOE of coal was 50% higher than the EIA reported, and that by 2020 the corrected value was more than 3 times greater than the EIA claimed. Looking ahead, as capacity factor continues to fall, the LCOE of coal rises accordingly, so that by 2030 the corrected value is 9 times greater than the EIA’s current projection. The story for gas, nuclear, and hydro power is much the same. Corrected gas LCOE is 60% higher than the EIA reported for 2020, and 5 times higher than reported for 2030. Nuclear is 175% higher than reported for 2020, and 13 times higher than reported for 2030. Hydro is 230% higher than reported for 2020, and 9 times higher than reported for 2030.

Without correction, unrealistic LCOE figures will continue to drive over-investment into conventional power. Once the divergence between erroneous LCOE and real levelized costs become impossible for incumbents to deny, the stranding of assets resulting from financial market corrections will be swift, and trillions backed by ratepayers and taxpayers and invested by pension, retirement and endowment funds could become worthless. An example of this is the fact that the market capitalization of coal in the United States, as reflected in the Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index, collapsed by over 99% from a high of 500 in 2011 to less than 5 in 2020, at which point the Index itself was quietly discontinued by S&P Global.

Decision makers must act immediately to correct this market distortion and protect millions of citizens who might have to bear the financial burden for the stranding. The first step is to correct the unrealistic assumptions about power plant capacity factor.

Please see our report: The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets.

https://rethinkx.us15.list-man…d=143bf424ce&e=51d0f3eb02

Our goal is to inspire a global conversation about the opportunities and threats of this technology-driven disruption and, importantly, the choices that can lead to a more equitable, healthy, resilient, and stable society. As a thought leader, your participation in this conversation is crucial.

We look forward to a robust discussion. Feel free to contact us directly, or through Twitter and LinkedIn.

Thanks for that information Alan Smith , it’s a sobering kick in the nether parts, but it needs to be acknowledged and internalized.

Cannabis, it’s a climate gas

Legal cannabis production in Colorado alone emits more greenhouse gases than does the state’s coal-mining industry. The energy required to yield one kilogram of dried flower from cannabis grown indoors generates the equivalent of 2–5 tonnes of CO2, depending on where the plant is grown. Most US cannabis is grown indoors under artificial lights, either for legal reasons or to avoid theft. “The profit margins are so huge that you don’t have to be making super energy-conscious decisions,” says Jason Quinn, who analysed the carbon footprint of the emerging US cannabis industry.

New Scientist | 3 min read

Reference: Nature Sustainability paper