LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

    Quote from r.hellenbrand

    Here is the latest 2020 chart.


    https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/co…gy_2020_United-States.png

    Thanks!

    Quote from r.hellenbrand

    You say it takes decades to switch to electric cars, here in Europe the last petrol car will be sold in 2030, don’t know how they want to upgrade the grid in just 9 years,...

    I do not know about Europe, but it would not be a problem in the U.S., according to what I have read. As I said above, the only thing you have to increase is fuel, for nighttime generation. The smart controllers should prevent blackouts during the day. As I said, the power companies offer a discount to customers who use these. The power company remotely turns off air conditioning or electric car chargers during peak hours.


    You would have more than 9 years to upgrade, because the average car lasts for 11 years these days. (https://www.caranddriver.com/r…ny-miles-does-a-car-last/) I think that is the half-life, meaning about half of all cars are still in service after 11 years. Not long after that, most will wear out. The decline is not steady for the whole life of the car. It accelerates after 11 years. Very few last for 20 years. Anyway, in 2030 there will still be many gasoline vehicles in use in Europe. The number will gradually decline. In 2041, about half of them might be in service. But maybe not, because before that, most gasoline stations will go out of business, forcing gasoline car owners to switch to electricity. I illustrated this trend here, on pages 2 and 3:


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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Anyway, in 2030 there will still be many gasoline vehicles in use in Europe. The number will gradually decline. In 2041, about half of them might be in service.

    I mean that in the mid-2020s, a large number of gasoline cars will still be sold in Europe. They will still be practically new in 2030. They will last a long time after that. Most people cannot afford to buy a new car before the old one wears out. So even if all sales stop in 2030, there will still be many gasoline cars on the road.


    Now, if they were to stop sales of gasoline cars today -- right now -- then by 2030 many would wear out and be replaced.


    In Europe the share of electric cars in new car sales is higher than the rest of the world. It ranges from 75% in Norway to 11% in the UK. (The UK is still in Europe, isn't it?) Perhaps in a few years nearly every new car sold will be electric. I cannot predict. If that happens, the fleet of gasoline cars will be gone sooner than I would expect. Also, I do not know what percent of cars on the road in Europe today are electric. I have not found a source for that.


    See:

    Electric vehicles make up large share of new car sales in Northern Europe

    Electric vehicles make up large share of new car sales in Northern Europe
    www.pewresearch.org

    Quote from r.hellenbrand

    In 2020 20,5% of new sold cars are Battery Electric Vehicle and 4,3% plug in hybrids (page 4).

    Prediction 2025 50% zero emission and 2030 100%, so that is going fast already.

    That is impressive. It is good news. But it still means there will be many gasoline cars in use in 2030, and for several years after that. So, the power companies will have more time to adjust. They will not need to recharge every car in the country starting in 2030.



    I am still confused by the definition of "MPGe." I am not sure how to estimate how much additional electric power would be needed with electric cars. MPGe is defined rather vaguely here:


    https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/decoding-electric-car-mpg.html


    I gather it is based on the caloric content of 1 gallon of gasoline, which this site says is 33.7 kWh. As far as I know, 1 gallon of gasoline produces 132 MJ which is 37 kWh. Anyway, I guess this means that MPGe is the measure of miles the car will go for each 33.7 kWh of primary energy. MPGe ratings of electric cars in the U.S. range from 100 to 120 MPGe. The average gasoline car gets 25 MPG. So electric cars are ~4 times more efficient measured in primary energy. Electric cars are more efficient for several reasons, mainly:

    • Conversion from primary energy to useful energy is much more efficient in electric generators than gasoline internal combustion engines (ICE).
    • For many sources of electricity such as hydro, wind and solar, Carnot efficiency does not apply. There really is no "conversion" in the same sense there is with thermal electric generators, because wind and solar are essentially unlimited, and hydro is extremely efficient, unless you count the energy left in flowing water below the dam.
    • Batteries are extremely efficient both in storage and delivering energy. In other words, they produce little waste heat.
    • Electric motors are much more efficient at low speeds than ICE, starting from zero up to ~40 mph (I think it is 40 mph).
    • Electric vehicles have regenerative braking, as do hybrid electric vehicles such as the Prius.

    If we are talking about primary energy, then it becomes very difficult to compare electric vehicles to gasoline ones, because the primary energy sources for electricity vary a great deal from one location to another, or from one season to another, or by time of day. Recharging in Atlanta will consume mainly natural gas and nuclear power, and some coal. Recharging in Seattle, WA will consume mainly hydroelectricity. In Texas at night in some places, it will consume only wind power.


    Georgia - State Energy Profile Overview - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


    Washington - State Energy Profile Overview - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


    The people at Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) treat all electric power as having "conversion efficiency" of 35%, which is really the combustion generation average Carnot efficiency. It is an approximation. Some combustion generators are much more efficient than that, and -- as I said -- conversion efficiency does not mean much with solar, wind or hydro. Anyway . . . if we assume the MPGe rating applies to primary energy from any source, and that transportation consumed 24.3 Quads in 2020, I guess that means that if all cars were electric, they would consume ~6.0 Quads of primary energy as defined by the LLNL, which translates to 2.1 Quads of useful electric power. So, total electric power delivered would increase from 12.4 Quads to 14.5 Quads. About 17% more than we now consume. That is a lot, and it would use a lot more natural gas, but -- as I said -- the distribution grid could handle it as long as most recharging is at night.


    I do not know what the numbers look like in Europe. Per capita electric power consumption there is lower than in the U.S. Probably, the average automobile MPG is a lot higher than the U.S. average of 25 MPG, which is abysmal. I think the U.S. average is so low because there are so many damn SUVs. From 1978 to the present I have never owned an automobile with such a low MPG rating.


    I hate SUVs. They are more dangerous than regular cars for the drivers, for people in other cars, and for pedestrians. See:


    High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV
    High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV
    www.amazon.com

    Interesting article on electric cars in the UK's 'Guardian' newspaper. It suggests another transport 'monoculture' may bring us new problems. Too many horses made too much crap, too many ICE vehicles make too much pollution, what problems will electric cars bring?


    The lost history of the electric car – and what it tells us about the future of transport
    The long read: To every age dogged with pollution, accidents and congestion, the transport solution for the next generation seems obvious – but the same…
    www.theguardian.com


    Alan Smith time shared cars will remove 2/3 of them from the road..

    No one will own their vehicle anymore. It will be managed by companies which will offer a service, a quality, a cleanliness according to the rental price that we want to put.

    This is for tomorrow morning when the self driving technologies will be finalized.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Very sobering.

    This article does not seem to take into account the possibility of storage, with batteries, pumped hydro or hydrogen. The numbers are completely different with that. In any case, no one is considering a fully renewable electric power system with no natural gas. Not for decades to come.


    AND, here's the thing. At present, electricity is generated by:


    Natural gas, 40%

    Renewables, 21%

    Nuclear, 20%

    Coal, 19%

    Other, <1%


    Renewables became second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020, per EIA | Renewable Energy World
    In 2020, renewables generated a record 834 billion kWh of electricity, or about 21% of all the electricity generated in the U.S., according to the EIA.
    www.renewableenergyworld.com


    So, if we replace coal with wind, solar and battery storage, we would have very low carbon emissions. That would be 20% of present generator capacity. Wind and solar already generate 9% of electricity, so they need to be increased by a factor of 3. That would not take long at present rates of expansion. Coal plants are old and most have to be retired soon, so it would not cost any more than we have to pay anyway. It would cost less to make wind, solar and storage than it would to build new coal plants to replace the ones being retired. That is, it would cost less over the life of the plant, when you include the cost of the coal itself. This is called the levelized cost of new generation resources. See:


    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf


    One thing we do not want to do is build more conventional nuclear plants. Based on the plant being built in Georgia, the cost is astronomical. I doubt the companies are even capable of doing it, because they keep going bankrupt and the completion date increases one year per year. Whether nuclear is safe or not is no longer an issue. It costs far too much!

    Quote from Cydonia

    time shared cars will remove 2/3 of them from the road..

    No one will own their vehicle anymore. It will be managed by companies which will offer a service, a quality, a cleanliness according to the rental price that we want to put.

    This is for tomorrow morning when the self driving technologies will be finalized.

    I do not see how self-driving time shared cars can reduce rush hour traffic much. For that, you need to stagger office starting times. If everyone wants to go to work in downtown Atlanta between 8 and 9 a.m., the number of cars will be about the same whether they are owned by the drivers or time-shared. However, I think new work habits brought about by the pandemic will permanently increase the number of people who work from home, or from small satellite offices close to home.


    Time shared cars will surely reduce automobile ownership, and the associated costs of maintenance, insurance, parking and so on. Self-driving taxi cabs will be far cheaper than human driven taxis and Ubers. They will be even better when robots tidy them up between customers, and clean them every night.


    Self driving cars could reduce rush hour and daytime truck traffic. Most heavy trucks, delivery vans and the like could drive at night. The robots see about as well in the dark as during the day, and they do not get sleepy. If they could deliver groceries to a store manned by robots at the loading dock, no human would need to stay up late at night. Ancient Rome had traffic problems. As I recall, they banned the movement of delivery carts during the day. Everything had to be moved at night.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Wind and solar already generate 9% of electricity

    That is 9% of total electricity delivered, not 9% of nameplate capacity. The two are often confused in the mass media. Nameplate capacity is higher than 9%, but these are intermittent sources. There is no solar power at night, and not much wind during some seasons of the year.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This article does not seem to take into account the possibility of storage, with batteries, pumped hydro or hydrogen.

    Okay, the author does mention batteries, but the discussion is asinine. Ridiculous. No one would think to do it this way:


    But you may say, no one would build the system this way, with gigantic over-capacity in place just to cover the handful of days in the year with the very lowest solar output. Instead, why not build much less solar capacity, and save up power from the summer to cover the winter. . . .


    [ABSURD!!]


    Since the average output of the solar facilities in California is about 20% of capacity averaged over the year, then you ought to be able to generate enough power for the year with capacity of about 5 times peak usage, rather than the 15 times in the scenario above. You just will need to save up power all the way from the summer to the winter. Oh, and you will need a huge multiple more storage than for the one-day-at-a-time scenario. If 180 days per year have less production than usage, and the average shortfall of production on each of those days is 300 GWH, then you will need 54,000 GWH worth of batteries (180 x 300). At $200 per KWH, that will run you around $10+ trillion.


    [THIS IS LIKE SAYING nuclear plants have to be closed for weeks during refueling, so we need one stand-by nuclear plant for each active one. It doesn't work that way.]


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Interesting article on electric cars in the UK's 'Guardian' newspaper. It suggests another transport 'monoculture' may bring us new problems. Too many horses made too much crap, too many ICE vehicles make too much pollution, what problems will electric cars bring?

    This is a pretty good article. A couple of things it does not mention:


    By around 1905, gasoline cars were much faster than electric cars. They would "fly by" them going uphill, as one electric car owner ruefully admitted. Electric cars were okay in cities and towns where the speed limits were informal at roughly 10 mph, but they were not good on the open road, where people drove at 20 mph or more. The Model T, introduced in 1908, had a top speed of 45 mph.


    People did anticipate problems with traffic jams with cars, air pollution from cars, and global warming from carbon dioxide. After the Model T was introduced they soon complained about the parking problem downtown.


    As I see it, a large part of the solution to the transportation problem is to do less transportation. Don't go. There are two kinds of transportation:


    1. People zipping around mainly by cars and airplanes. The pandemic showed that much of this is gratuitous and can be reduced or avoided with things like Zoom. Zoom will improve in the years to come. (It can hardly get worse.) In 2020, many businessmen discovered they don't need to fly to customer sites after all. I hope that telecommuting and the use of satellite offices increases.


    2. Freight. This goes by ship, airplane, railroads, trucks and Amazon delivery vehicles. It often goes long distances, such as when manufactured items go from China to somewhere in the U.S. That's absurd. Manufactured items should be manufactured close to home, by robots. There should be no price advantage making things far away in other countries. If a new widget is transported 20 miles from the factory to Walmart, that generates much less traffic than transporting it halfway around the world.


    A large fraction of U.S. railroad traffic is coal. Around 14% of carloads. This is going away soon. From this you see that coal contributes to global warming from burning the coal, and also from petroleum used to haul the coal on railroads, and to mine it.


    Commentary: Is the death of rail-hauled coal true, or premature? - FreightWaves
    Market expert Jim Blaze writes about the movement of coal by rail. He explores the history of rail-coal; more importantly, he writes about what the future may…
    www.freightwaves.com

    Today, RethinkX is releasing, “Rethinking Climate Change: How Humanity Can Choose to Reduce Emissions 90% by 2035 through the Disruption of Energy, Transportation, and Food with Existing Technologies.”


    In this new report, we show that with the right societal choices these three disruptions can eliminate the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide within 15 years, and that market forces can be leveraged to do the bulk of the mitigation work because the technologies required are either already commercially available and competitive today, or can be deployed to market before 2025. This also means we can fight climate change while simultaneously saving trillions of dollars and fostering prosperity worldwide. Furthermore, these very same technologies will also make the cost of carbon withdrawal affordable, meaning that moonshot breakthrough technologies are not required to go beyond net zero from 2035 onwards. Regions, nations, cities, communities, businesses, and investors that choose to embrace and lead the disruptions will reap enormous economic and social rewards as well as environmental benefits, allowing less-developed areas to level the playing field and leapfrog over previous barriers to human development. Therefore, the greatest barrier to fighting climate change is our mindset. It is up to us to decide whether or not we deploy these technologies worldwide rapidly enough to avoid dangerous climate change.

    Be more imaginative Jed, self driving shared cars won't carry people one by one...

    We will see cars for 6, 8 or 10 persons, with same number of separated doors , separated window for all.

    As long as we can see fashion cars in the town where is living the dottore ..

    As i seen in the "old fashion" Morroco ten years ago about taxis, continually this self car will take and leave persons on the road, all of them will do only a part of the travel.

    Be the future.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    I do not see how self-driving time shared cars can reduce rush hour traffic much. For that, you need to stagger office starting times. If everyone wants to go to work in downtown Atlanta between 8 and 9 a.m., the number of cars will be about the same whether they are owned by the drivers or time-shared. However, I think new work habits brought about by the pandemic will permanently increase the number of people who work from home, or from small satellite offices close to home.


    Time shared cars will surely reduce automobile ownership, and the associated costs of maintenance, insurance, parking and so on. Self-driving taxi cabs will be far cheaper than human driven taxis and Ubers. They will be even better when robots tidy them up between customers, and clean them every night.


    Self driving cars could reduce rush hour and daytime truck traffic. Most heavy trucks, delivery vans and the like could drive at night. The robots see about as well in the dark as during the day, and they do not get sleepy. If they could deliver groceries to a store manned by robots at the loading dock, no human would need to stay up late at night. Ancient Rome had traffic problems. As I recall, they banned the movement of delivery carts during the day. Everything had to be moved at night.

    Quote from Cydonia

    Be more imaginative Jed, self driving shared cars won't carry people one by one...

    We will see cars for 6, 8 or 10 persons, with same number of separated doors , separated window for all.

    If that is what you are talking about, it could be done with human drivers. That kind of vehicle used to be common in the U.S. It was called a "jitney" in some parts of the country. They are still used to pick up people at home and drive them to the airport.


    That has nothing to do with self-driving cars per se, except that it would reduce the cost of those cars. Not by much, because with several passengers you do not have to pay the human driver much. That is why jitneys are used to take people to airports -- because it is cheaper than individual taxicabs. It works well because everyone is going to the same place. Picking up people at different locations and taking them to different locations is less effective, and it takes too long. That is why jitneys went out of style.

    It works well because everyone is going to the same place. Picking up people at different locations and taking them to different locations is less effective, and it takes too long. That is why jitneys went out of style.


    You forget that self cars network will be managed by IA more efficient than individual drivers even if helped by google maps :)

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If that is what you are talking about, it could be done with human drivers. That kind of vehicle used to be common in the U.S. It was called a "jitney" in some parts of the country. They are still used to pick up people at home and drive them to the airport.


    That has nothing to do with self-driving cars per se, except that it would reduce the cost of those cars. Not by much, because with several passengers you do not have to pay the human driver much. That is why jitneys are used to take people to airports -- because it is cheaper than individual taxicabs. It works well because everyone is going to the same place. Picking up people at different locations and taking them to different locations is less effective, and it takes too long. That is why jitneys went out of style.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Today, RethinkX is releasing, “Rethinking Climate Change: How Humanity Can Choose to Reduce Emissions 90% by 2035 through the Disruption of Energy, Transportation, and Food with Existing Technologies.”

    This report discusses some of the subjects I have touched upon here, and in my book. Especially the use of indoor food production to free up land, which is then reforested to absorb CO2.


    The report describes how many incremental changes can produce an overall large change. It also illustrates how some technological changes go faster than you might think. This is in the section "The Surprising Speed of Disruption" and the graphs on p. 33. These examples are little unfair because they mostly involve technology with low overhead costs, no infrastructure, and no built-in reason to slow down adaption of the newer technology. For example, the replacement of red fabric dyes with synthetic dye (1870 - 1885), or non-radial car tires with radials (1972 - 1987). Radial tires work the same way as the older ones. They are one-for-one replacements. They do not need new automobile types, or new kinds of roads and highways. Non-radial tires all wear out and have to be replaced anyway. If the tire were radically different, it could not replace the old one as quickly. For example, look at the Goodyear Eagle-360 spherical tires. This is a futuristic concept product. It would require a completely re-engineered automobile. It would be much more difficult to implement than a radial tire. I doubt this tire will be implemented in the next 50 years, because the advantages are not large enough to justify the cost.


    Cold fusion would also require complete re-engineering of most products. It would take many years to implement for that reason. But, it would be implemented, because the cost savings and other advantages are overwhelming. I expect it would be implemented in weapons systems first, because when you fall behind technologically, you are likely to lose a war.

    Quote from Cydonia

    You forget that self cars network will be managed by IA more efficient than individual drivers even if helped by google maps :)

    There is a limit to how much better or faster cars can go in a given amount of traffic. If the same number of people want to go downtown to Atlanta at 9 a.m., it is certain they will encounter heavy stop-and-go traffic. It will take a long time. No amount of AI or planning can make them go faster. Putting several people into one car would help. There are now commuter buses and subway trains that accomplish that. Dedicated bus lanes would also help. But, fundamentally, there is not enough space and time for the number of people who want to go downtown at that hour. There is no place left to build roads. Self-driving cars would not go any faster. There is no mathematical solution waiting to be discovered with AI or by any other means. The equations are simple enough to be done by people.


    A jitney service that begins by going through neighborhoods collecting people, and then goes to multiple locations will take a very long time. It would take a long time even in light traffic conditions.


    Gathering people at the suburban express bus locations has succeeded in increasing passenger density. People go to the bus station parking lot in their own cars, so there is no delay from jitney pick-ups. The buses go to locations downtown within walking distance of where many people work. The buses have amenities such as wifi and cell phone service, which you are not allowed to use when you drive yourself, so people make better use of their commuting time. Things like electric scooters help with the last mile. This kind of solution has nothing to do with self-driving vehicles. It works with today's technology.


    Example:


    Xpress | Commuting Made Easy!

    Google Inc CMNS energy tech development. My guess is they are fast tracking... not backing off on this research and product development. Keep looking into this quadrant. Their spinoff Alphabet Inc. as well.



    Yet Ming Chiang, MIT professor (Metamaterial Physics, entrepreneur, and LENR research 'Team Google Inc.'


    Nice vid about energy and incinerator ash mining from Trash Tank... a think-tank.


    The Google Inc. LENR patent?

    Status Active

    Adjusted expiration 2038-05-05

    US10566094B2 - Enhanced electron screening through plasmon oscillations - Google Patents



    External Content youtu.be
    Content 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.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.