LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

But we already had a source of energy that works all the time called fossil fuels. POTUS promptly restricted its use when he took office. The best form of it is natural gas. I happen to live three miles from the end of natural gas service. In the early part of the twentieth century the governments worked to electrify the nation. Why can't a similar effort be done to bring natural gas service to rural areas. I read once that eight potential customers per mile is necessary to justify putting in the pipeline. With proper programs in place that requirement could be effectively lowered, say to two.

By the way, aren't there myriad marine animals that naturally sequester carbon? Use them.

My daughter lives near Austin Texas. The ground is limestone, so new you can still make out the creatures that formed it.

When was that limestone formed? It can be dated from the fossil records, maybe one hundred million years ago? There has been plenty of climate change since then, to say nothing of continental drift, volcanic activity and meteor strikes. Our theory of climate change being solely due to greenhouse gas emissions is only one factor in this planet-warming phenomenon, and may turn out to be not all that important. When you compare it to methane which is far (X4 or so) more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide itself. Monckton has expressed this view but argues from a science base as apposed to Greenpeace campaigners who argue Greta Thunberg's case.

So do we support Lord Christopher Monckton's scientific view or a teenage girl's point of view?

Quote from JedRothwell

When was that limestone formed? It can be dated from the fossil records, maybe one hundred million years ago? There has been plenty of climate change since then, to say nothing of continental drift, volcanic activity and meteor strikes. Our theory of climate change being solely due to greenhouse gas emissions is only one factor in this planet-warming phenomenon, and may turn out to be not all that important. When you compare it to methane which is far (X4 or so) more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide itself. Monckton has expressed this view but argues from a science base as apposed to Greenpeace campaigners who argue Greta Thunberg's case.

No, Please go over to the potholer channel and try to express your ideas there or over to skeptical science, (Hint you will make a fool out of yourself) there are great discussions there about this topic and Greta does not invent this from thin air, it is a genuine worry shred among many people including me. But sure the the world has nuked itself many times in the past. It's that I just do not see the point to risk a collective suicide as we do now. But things are not as grim as it looks, I can cycle, I can walk I can take the train, I can have more clothes on and keep inside temperature colder, I can eat less meat (hint consumes resources). I can spend vacation with friends in beautiful Sweden in stead of traveling around the earth. Case in point: Swedes never where as healthy as during the WW2 (we did not go to war). Why on earth do we have to live as we always do when the world almost is going into a nuclear war, of cause we can adapt for harsh times if we must. Heck we can save the coming famine if we just stop eating meat every day and optimize for global healthy. We can but we don't because our system cater to the individual as it should under normal times.

In a 'normal' democracy what you are suggesting is true. But this is the 21st century and all I can say is 'times are a'changing!' All life on our planet is going through a period of tumultuous change. And like the dinosaurs before us we all have to, at least try, to adapt to such changes.

Quote from Dr Richard*

So do we support Lord Christopher Monckton's scientific view or a teenage girl's point of view?

What "scientific approach" can we talk about if we do not know the weather that was in Moscow 300 years ago on April 2 ??? The second month of spring is coming ... Spring should be here, but heavy snowfall in Moscow ...

Quote from Daniel_G

I agree with your inuendo that this is a lot of nonsense. I’m sure Putin is not shaking in his boots. We need a source of energy that works all the time when you need it and is cheap and abundant enough for market forces to push it forward not tax breaks or subsidies or laws.

You do not want to listen to my articles and my reasoning ... For you, I posted the information in this thread - "Hydro-wave technology" Afanasyev V.S. and comments to it Cherepanov A.I. - "Hydro-wave technology" Afanasyev V.S. and comments to it Cherepanov A.I.

Humanity can be saved by hydrowave technology...

Interview with Vladimir Afanasiev translate for English - https://my.mail.ru/mail/owt2012/video/24/27.html

Interview with Vladimir Afanasiev - translate for English, 19.08.2010 -

Interview with Vladimir Afanasiev - translate for English, 19.08.2010

Another explanation to physicists of Maxwell's mistakes, 19.01.2021-01.11.2021 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8wdJ/3MSKr2FtRAnother explanation to physicists...

www.youtube.com

Let us not make this about global warming. My post last night was intended to make a point with the 2 contrasting articles. In one, the author whose interest is "decarbonization", tells Europe they can fight Putin (not trying to provoke you Cherepanov) with green energy. The other article was based on a UK government official's comment that a new energy plan will be announced in response to the Russian aggression, and it will call for more nuclear plants.

Neither is actually a short term solution, but the 2 articles demonstrate that while we like to talk about how great green energy...that it can answer all our needs NOW, when a government needs more energy, they still turn to nuclear, and the dirty stuff. They know hopes, dreams and rosy projections -like those of the one author, won't fully power the grid anytime soon, but traditional power can, and will.

Re: The age of that limestone. As mentioned, you can see the individual shells of the ex marine life all mashed together. The soil level seems to be quite thin. In 12 thousand years one would expect about six inches like where I live. But what really makes the case for a young strata is the hydrogen sulfide In the well water. My daughter's family has to pump the water into a tank and allow the hydrogen sulfide to escape into the air. In a million years or so one would expect natural water infiltration through the limestone to have removed the hydrogen sulfide.

But releasing H2S (hydrogen sulphide) from the ground-water over a long period of time would raise the level of sulphuric acid in the rainfall. Which would tend to degrade most metals to form for instance blue copper sulphate. This would then degrade, with sunlight and oxygen to stable black copper oxide. Burning fossil fuels probably has liberated similar levels of H2S into the atmosphere, but no way near the level released from melting permafrost which releases methane too! We cannot blame CO2 solely for global warming, it is only one factor in the exceedingly complex analysis of global warming.

I suspect that H2S might be part of the gas mix that Gennadiy Tarassenko needs to make his magic happen

This can be for sure, because I found iron nodules and chalcopyrite in limestones, that's what you said correctly, and I threw lime and shell chalk there, maybe you'll be right, we need to pump hydrogen sulfide, we have a lot of it, look at the photo...

Here's more

Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

This can be for sure, because I found iron nodules and chalcopyrite in limestones,

Some limestone is of "biological origin" (Plankton) . Every living cell contains amino acids and hormone like chemicals some contain sulfur, iron and other traces of metals. We face the same problem when we burn lignite/coal in general. Also crude oil may contain >0.5% sulfur that is removed since about 1980.

So this sulfur from "rock" is nothing special.

Of course you are correct in the short-term renewables would be a better option. But in the longer term we should I think be trying to exploit cold fusion. By linking co-deposition of deuterium and hydrogen with Pd possibly in hybrid small fission-fusion reactors. The extra neutrons supplied by fission would allow control of slow fusion reactions. But then again maybe purely fusion reactors, based purely on LENR, will be the answer for the longer term.

Quote from Dr Richard*

Of course you are correct in the short-term renewables would be a better option. But in the longer term we should I think be trying to exploit cold fusion.

Absolutely! As soon as possible. It wouldn't take long either.

Quote from JedRothwell

So, if you spent half of the $33 billion on each, you would get 9,187 MW of solar capacity plus more than enough storage to keep it running 24 hours a day.

I do not mean you would put 9,187 MW of solar panels in Georgia alone. I think it would be better to spread them over several states north to south, from North Carolina to Florida. Cloudy weather or storms seldom cover all of those states at one time, so there would always be some solar output during the day. Natural gas could be used during widespread inclement weather.

There is plenty of space for solar panels without using any additional land. I mean, for example, on top of large, flat buildings such as warehouses and Walmart stores, and parking lot canopy installations (that make parking more comfortable in hot climates). See:

Commercial Solar Company for Warehouses

Aurora Energy has extensive experience with solar array installations for warehouses in Maryland, Virginia & D.C.

www.aurora-energy.com

Walmart adds 6.5 MW of rooftop and canopy parking solar to California stores

The $10 million portfolio was developed by Sol Customer Solutions and will deliver energy to seven stores across the state.

www.pv-magazine.com

Georgia has no significant wind resources on land. It has offshore wind in the Atlantic ocean, but there are no wind farms there as far as I know.

......also with modern innovation at the nanoscale level we now can mass-produce triple-layered panels which are above 40% efficient (43% I think) so factoring in this advance makes solar power a win win for the clean energy future.......as well as LENR!

Quote from JedRothwell

The new nukes will generate 2,302 MW.

Solar now costs $1,796,000/MW. I think that is adjusted for capacity factor.

You are not comparing apples to apples. Solar is about $1/W but that only produces 4-6Wh per day. A nuke will generate 24/7 so 4-6 times as much energy is produced from the nuke watt to watt.

Battery storage is $1,500,000/MW.

You cannot price battery storage using power in this case. EIA prices battery storage at $1522/kWh in 2019. If we assume that 24h of battery capacity is sufficient to give comparable coverage as a nuke, the battery storage alone will cost $84b. To charge these batteries you need at least 5x the peak capacity to charge the batteries during the day to be able to power at night. So about $11.5b for the solar panels.

Your numbers are way off. Nearly $100b for solar equivalent base load nukes of 2302MW.

My simple calculation ignores the 92% capacity factor of nukes but it doesn’t matter in this rough analysis. Subtract 8% for real costs.

So, if you spent half of the $33 billion on each, you would get 9,187 MW of solar capacity plus more than enough storage to keep it running 24 hours a day. I don't think you would need $16.5 billion for storage, but anyway this is a rough estimate. Worst case you would get 4 times more capacity than the new nukes will provide.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/s…ectricity/batterystorage/

Georgia has 8,600 MW of coal capacity, but I do not think it is run 24 hours a day because it is expensive. Natural gas is cheaper. In 2021 coal produced 440 thousand MWH compared to 5,301 thousand MWH for natural gas, and 798 thousand MWH for nonhydroelectric renewables. In other words, 9,180 MW of new solar would easily retire the remaining coal plants.

https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php?sid=GA#tabs-4

Net summer capacity is 37,279 MW. That's capacity. Much of that is closed down at night.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Georgia/

Display More

Quote from Dr Richard*

also with modern innovation at the nanoscale level we now can mass-produce triple-layered panels which are above 40% efficient (43% I think)

Where did you get this???

40% grade conversion is from chips not from panels! The irradiation needed is 800-1500x solar....