LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from Shane D.

This is like the old adage: "what came first, the chicken or the egg?".

The turtle or the egg is more first than the chicken or the egg

🥚🐢🥚🦜🥚

LENR is in a special group ..like the platypus..

at the moment it is 'free' and living on the outskirts of civilization.

But its time will come..I believe.

"

All the creatures agreed and from that time onwards,

Platypus has been considered very wise and very special indeed

https://rumbalara-e.schools.ns…riginal_platypusstory.pdf

Failure to produce a product is no proof the tech wasn't real. I am quite confident the Papp engine was real - looks like a hydrino reaction to me. Even the engineers who get that far, are sunk for lack of theoretical know how. Coupled with the irrational fear of someone stealing their invisible ring, we know why failure is so common, failure to build a team.

The path of the entrepreneur requires a vast amount of skills which basically no person can have. Meaning you could have 100 PhDs who know how magnetic motors work but 99 would fail for one reason or another. I stand open to the idea, but assume at the moment that they are using some sort of stored capacity in a magnet that itself took energy to form.. I haven't found any hard science to describe it.

Btw, if you are going down this path, feel free to reach out! I have skilled people in my network who can help.

Beyond the need to find alternatives or risk survival/discomfort is the promise of "better".

Better can mean cleaner, smaller, lighter, longer-lived, denser, simpler, easier, or more adaptable.

I believe a major challenge is making new things which are so much better that the old things cannot compete.

Resting on your laurels, when better can be found, seems a bit silly, especially if you thrive on challenges.

Let us hope that human nature's desire for challenge continues and strengthens.

One thing I would like to mention. Taking out wind energy is physically also lowering the global temperature. Will be interesting if we see such effects. "Stopping" air circulation results in hotter region staying warmer an vice versa. So there will be also an effect on backward radiation.

Quote from Wyttenbach

One thing I would like to mention. Taking out wind energy is physically also lowering the global temperature. Will be interesting if we see such effects. "Stopping" air circulation results in hotter region staying warmer an vice versa. So there will be also an effect on backward radiation.

Not only this, the heat pump, the golf stream, that gives so much life to Europe is claimed to be weaken and if that happen then things can really get nasty. Unbearable heat near the equator probably and something much cooler where I live.

Quote from stefan

Not only this, the heat pump, the golf stream, that gives so much life to Europe is claimed to be weaken

The gulf stream has an about 40 years oscillation. Now we face the minimum with the same wet weather we had about 40 years ago. Last time there have been 3 wet years in 4.

The gulf stream circulation and oscillation is claimed to depend on the melting polar ice that produces two effects. Water is cooling down --> heavier --> sinking. But the density has minimum around 4C^o. The other effect is: Sweat water is less heavy --> opposite effect - deep water (at 4C^o) coming upwards.

The current model is unclear ...

Quote from Alan Smith

Until the pathway is clear, we cannot afford to switch off fossil fuel pow-er systems, which form the bedrock of modern society.

I think there is some truth to this. But people sometimes forget that we replace almost all energy generation systems every 20 to 50 years anyway, as equipment wears out. Hydroelectric dams last longer, and the buildings that house steam turbines can last longer, but the equipment itself wears out. Automobile, truck, locomotive and aircraft engines wear out. So, replacing all of it in two generations may not be as difficult as it seems. It will not cost more than we have to pay anyway. Many analyses now say that solar and wind are cheaper per kilowatt of capacity than coal or natural gas. They are far cheaper than nuclear power. Assuming that is the case, replacing most generator capacity with solar and wind will not cost more than we would have pay to maintain our present generating systems. Okay, maybe a little more, because we will need batteries or other storage systems.

Certainly there would be no problem scaling up the manufacturing of wind and solar. There is enough capacity in the U.S. and the North Sea, or the Sahara desert, to power the whole world many times over. The problem would be to get the energy from the U.S. southwest or the Sahara to places like Japan that do not have abundant wind or solar resources. Perhaps hydrogen or synthetic hydrocarbons would be economical.

Along the same lines, people sometimes say: "we cannot afford to replace all automobiles with electric cars." Or ". . . with self-driving cars." They forget that most automobiles only last about 11 years. We have to replace them all anyway. Even experts sometimes overlook this. I have read comments from them like this.

Of course, a few automobiles last longer than 11 years. I had one for 20 years before it finally gave up the ghost. There are even a few Model-T Ford buzzing around. The National Geographic says: "Approximately 65 percent of all Rolls-Royce motorcars ever built are still on the road today." (https://www.natgeotv.com/ca/megafactories/rolls-royce). But those are special cases. Nearly all of the cars on the road today were made in the last 11 years. Furthermore, if we were stop the production of gasoline engine cars today, and make only electric models, in about 5 years most gas stations would go out of business, and people owning gasoline models would be forced to trade in, which would accelerate the transition. See p. 2 and 3:

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

The other thing to remember is you do not need to replace every single fossil fuel engine to avert calamity. If, the year 2100, there are still a few hundred coal-fired generators and a few hundred thousand gasoline powered automobiles, that should not be a problem. As long as we grow more trees to remove carbon faster than these would add them, it should be okay. There are plenty of places that would benefit from reforestation. If indoor agriculture increases -- as I hope it will -- there were be millions of acres of land available for reforestation. Indoor agriculture uses much less land, water, pesticide and energy than conventional farms.

On the other hand, it would be better for people living near coal fired plants and coal mines if we shut them all down.

Loss free energy storage battery could revolutionize green energy storage!

https://www.heat-insyde.eu/

This video explains how the storage works, is only in Dutch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aXALl8gYik&t=25s

Ron