LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

    Daniel_G wrote:


    Quote

    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.

    As I said, I believe the EIA numbers are adjusted for capacity factor. In other words, they compute the cost based on average hours of sunlight and the average number of kilowatt hours produced by a solar panel, not by maximum capacity of the panel. That is also what they do for wind generation.


    There is some controversy about this, because coal is now so expensive, coal plants are often shut down, either overnight, or for days at a time. In the UK they are closed for weeks at a time. That makes the actual coal capacity factor low. They could be used 24 hours a day, but that would be burning money for no reason. Nuclear plants cannot be shut down momentarily. They have to be left running, so they are all baseline generation.


    Decades ago, coal was burned in bulk, making it difficult to shut down. Nowadays it is ground up into fine particles, or gasified, so it can be closed down or turned down more easily. Natural gas can be turned on or off, or increased for a rapid response to demand. Battery storage has the most rapid response, obviously.


    Using coal for short term generation is like burning cash money:


    Britain’s last coal power stations to be paid huge sums to keep lights on
    Plants called on to supply electricity amid fall in wind generation and surge in price of gas
    www.theguardian.com

    Quote from Wyttenbach

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

    I wouldn't know about that 40%, but I note that irradiation can be increased with concentrated solar. I do not mean centralized concentrated solar boilers. I mean mirrors or Fresnel lenses concentrating sunlight on PV cells. Years ago people were developing this. I do not think it went anywhere because the mirrors and lenses cost a large fraction of the PV cells.


    You cannot increase concentration 800 times, obviously.


    Here is an interesting table, on p. 2:


    Table 1. Cost and performance characteristics of new central station electricity generating technologies


    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I mean mirrors or Fresnel lenses concentrating sunlight on PV cells. Years ago people were developing this.

    It turns out people are still developing this.


    How Fresnel Lenses are used in Solar CPV Applications - Knight Optical
    Fresnel lenses are flat on one side, with the other side made up of a number of concentric grooves acting as individual prisms, bending parallel light rays to…
    www.knightoptical.com


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    Quote from GRMattson

    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.

    Dear friends,


    I really appreciate these multidisciplinary exchanges between physicists, geologists like our friend Gennadiy, and also biologists.


    It is by comparing our various experiences that we will move forward in solving the problems we face.



    To respond to GRMattson and Red Richards, the presence of hydrogen sulphide in near-surface water layers is often a recent occrence. For example, I had a controversy with the official geologists who took care of the waters of Enghien, a pretty thermal bath town north of Paris:


    Their hypothesis was that these waters had a relatively deep origin (about 200 meters) and that the hydrogen sulphide came from the hydrolysis of marcasite nodules present in the geological layer of the Sparnacian. (To find out what marcasite nodules are, see the photographs of the rust-colored concretions posted by gennadiy.) It's marcasite. It is an unstable form of pyrite. (FeS2) If we saw them and polish these concretions, we obtain a beautiful golden mirror. (but less golden than pyrite)


    The ancients made infrared lenses from them to light sacred fires, but find very few of them in archaeological deposits, because as soon as these lenses are exposed to humid air, bacteria oxidize them into sulphate and produce metastable sulfur, and then iron sulfate and iron oxide.


    Look in the photos for the difference between freshly mined nodules and rusty nodules.


    I had a beautiful marcasite mirror that weighed more than a kilogram, and when I opened the box where I kept it, there was only whitish powder.


    My concretion collection is protected by dipping in wax.



    The waters of Enghien are probably due to the reduction of selenitous waters (That is to say loaded with gypsum, or calcium sulphate) These waters come down from the hills of Sannois and Montmorency, next to my house, and the sulfates are reduced to sulfide by the action of underground bacteria.


    Obviously, a reducing body is needed. I postulated the presence of an old peat bog or an old reed bed buried in the ground, which would have provided a source of carbon essential for the reduction of sulphate:


    SO4-- + 2C -------> S-- + CO2


    I think the huge sulfur deposits in Louisiana are caused by this reaction. (The carbon comes from methane, and the sulfur comes from the gypsum of the "diapirs")

    Around the spring, in an oxygenated environment, the opposite reaction is carried out by other bacteria which oxidize the sulphides, first to sulphur, then to sulfuric acid.


    SH2+ O2 ---------> S + H2O---------> S04--


    These bacteria form filaments and biofilms called “baregines”. They secrete healing compounds and antibiotics, as well as sulfate-reducing bacteria. Needless to say that these compounds, poorly known, are the subject of only a few studies. We even try to sterilize the thermal waters by all means, which is heresy.


    20 years ago, I warned the authorities, through the press, against the project of a semi-buried highway at this place which would have largely blocked the road to the thermal waters. During the digging of this highway, we were able to observe the presence of black soil, loaded with organic matter over several meters. The expected fossil bog was there.


    As soon as the oxygen has penetrated the layer containing the anaerobic bacteria, these precious microscopic auxiliaries of medicine were extinguished forever. To make matters worse, the highway was built under the water table and a pumping station was installed in an underground raft. The pumps locally dried up the water table.


    A recent deep drilling down to -110 meters did not find any sulphide water at depth. The old thermal center which treated asthmatic children of Paris with sulphurous waters has been transformed into a luxury “Spa” for casino customers.


    In the lake sediments, we will undoubtedly discover one day, thanks to a real estate operation, the remains of the thermal baths that the Gallo-Romans did not fail to build in this place. We will not have had their wisdom.



    I made this drawing of the geological structure of this place for my students:



    and this is the underground way of the sulfhydric waters:


    Quote from JedRothwell

    It turns out people are still developing this.


    https://www.knightoptical.com/…n-solar-cpv-applications/


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    I was really interested years ago in what is called "Fresnel arrays" for solar concentrating power. Instead of using concentric mirrors (which are expensive to make) Fresnel arrays use a series of flat mirrors angled in a way that concentrates the light in a central pipe that heats the heat transfer fluid. It was much cheaper per Kw than all other concentrating solar systems.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Like 1 Thanks 1

    In the green energy world there are the talkers and the doers. Since as far back as I can remember, the talkers have been telling us how wind/solar/hydro, and other exotic technologies, can power the world....now. That fossil fuels, and nuclear were no longer needed. But somehow, all these years later, oceans of ink, thousands of conferences in plush resorts, government subsidies, solar still provides only 3% of the worlds electricity needs (wind varies by country but here in the US is 8%).


    Those that are tasked with actually making the world run though, the government planners, and builders...those having to answer to their citizens and customers who demand power cheaply, and without interruption, more often than not, STILL opt for the more traditional sources.


    Why? Are the doers anti-green, love to pollute the earth, or do they simply know what works best to satisfy the people's needs? We all want green energy in whatever form to work so we can replace what we have now. Eventually that will happen, but in reality we are decades from that happening, unless....


    Someone in our community makes LENR happen...soon, real soon. If not, well then, I believe that what the Carl Pages (Anthropocene) of the world have proposed, which is to re-embrace the one technology that does not emit any green house gases.

    Quote from Shane D.

    But somehow, all these years later, oceans of ink, thousands of conferences in plush resorts, government subsidies, solar still provides only 3% of the worlds electricity needs (wind varies by country but here in the US is 8%).

    The main problem is that people enjoy to make holiday trips by plane, need a SUV/Pickup to move a single ass and do not like to insulate the home.


    The result/outcome of a phallocentrism society is well known. Total waste of resources....


    We can easily reduce carbon 4x with almost no cost in average over 10..15 years.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The main problem is that people enjoy to make holiday trips by plane, need a SUV/Pickup to move a single ass and do not like to insulate the home.


    The result/outcome of a phallocentrism society is well known. Total waste of resources....


    We can easily reduce carbon 4x with almost no cost in average over 10..15 years.

    I agree. One of the problems the planners/doers have to take into consideration is the whims of people, and how foolish and hypocritical we are as a species. The same citizen screaming for renewables, raging about AGW, may very likely be the first person to file a lawsuit to stop construction of the solar farm the planner decided to build, just to protect some turtle. Or block development of the wind farm because he/she doesn't want it sitting offshore behind their Martha's Vineyard beachfront mansion.


    And when these projects take years, and years longer to complete because of the obstructionism thrown up by the very same people demanding the project be built in the first place...who gets the blame? And when a project is completed, and the wind stops blowing, sun does not shine, and energy bill goes up through the roof....who gets blamed? :)


    There are many technical issues preventing large scale introduction of renewables, but there are also as many social issues as well. Planners, builders, doers are not dumb, know all this, and that IMO is why we are nowhere near realizing renewables potential,

    Quote from Curbina

    I was really interested years ago in what is called "Fresnel arrays" for solar concentrating power. Instead of using concentric mirrors (which are expensive to make) Fresnel arrays use a series of flat mirrors angled in a way that concentrates the light in a central pipe that heats the heat transfer fluid. It was much cheaper per Kw than all other concentrating solar systems.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    This solar plant was built hundred years ago at Maadi, near Cairo. (The exact place is now covered by buildings)

    Quote from Shane D.

    In the green energy world there are the talkers and the doers. Since as far back as I can remember, the talkers have been telling us how wind/solar/hydro, and other exotic technologies, can power the world....now. That fossil fuels, and nuclear were no longer needed.

    They were wrong in the short run, but right in the long run. Subsidies for coal and other unfair competition held alternatives back for a long time, similar to the way GM and others held back the development of electric cars. GM would still be trying to stop electric cars if they could, but they now realize that would be suicidal. They would be handing over all of their remaining -- much diminished -- market share to Tesla and other competitors. The power companies now realize that they can either go solar or go broke. They are not installing solar as a favor to the public. They are doing it for profit. It costs much less over the life of the equipment than coal or nuclear, and you get the whole power station on line a year after you put in the order.

    Quote from Shane D.

    But somehow, all these years later, oceans of ink, thousands of conferences in plush resorts, government subsidies, solar still provides only 3% of the worlds electricity needs (wind varies by country but here in the US is 8%).

    On the other hand, 74% of new generating capacity now being built is solar, wind or batteries. When the older generators wear out in 20 to 30 years, it will almost all be renewable wind and solar. See:


    Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022
    www.eia.gov


    Also, government subsidies for coal and oil have been orders of magnitude larger than subsidies for renewables. Especially if you add in wars for oil.

    Quote from Shane D.

    those having to answer to their citizens and customers who demand power cheaply, and without interruption, more often than not, STILL opt for the more traditional sources.

    Incorrect, as you see from the EIA stats (which come from industry). No customer cares where electricity comes from. Most don't even know. The only thing the customers care about is the price. They want the cheapest electricity. The cheapest electricity comes from solar nowadays. So that is what is being installed. If it came from rutabagas that is what the power companies would install.


    If cold fusion is ever made practical, it will wipe out all other sources in a generation. No customer feels any loyalty to the power company or any particular source of energy. People couldn't care less about that.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    For coal, you have to include the land devoted to railroads to haul the coal. For some rail lines, nearly all traffic is coal. If coal is no longer used, the lines will be abandoned, and the land used for something else.

    I posted this photo from a CNN video in 2019. This shows hundreds of parked railroad locomotives. They are out of service.



    They were used to haul coal before the coal industry collapsed, and sales fell by 60%, starting in 2008:



    Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


    Imagine the capital cost of all those locomotives, and the thousands of miles of track you need to maintain! And the mining equipment. Astounding amounts of money have been lost. I feel sorry for the miners, and the people who operate the railroads, and the others. They are victims of progress. Looking at that photo, you can see why solar or wind is cheaper. A power company exec described building a wind farm. You e-mail an order and wire transfer some millions of dollars. You prepare the site. A few months later they dispatch a trainload of equipment. One trainload -- not a load of a million tons of coal every week. They erect the equipment and a year or so after you put in the order you have 200 MW of power. Low maintenance. No high temperatures. No fuel needed. The National Weather Service tells you a week in advance how much power it will provide. Imagine how much less that costs compared to having trains haul thousands of tons of coal every few days.


    Of course wind and solar have disadvantages. They cost a lot of money to construct, and you can't turn them on or off to meet demand. They need battery storage to expand. Cold fusion would be far better. But at this moment in the history of technology, they are the best solutions. They cannot replace all power generation, but they can replace most of it. Enough to power all automobiles. Electric cars take a lot less energy than you might think. Gasoline cars and gasoline refining and distribution are hideously inefficient. That's why gasoline alone is a huge fraction of total world energy production. Electric cars would consume far less primary energy, and nearly all of it can come from clean sources such as wind. It is ideal for that, because electric car can be recharged overnight whenever power is available, with smart meters.


    I made a very rough estimate of how much power an average electric car should consume in the U.S. The average passenger car is driven 14,263 miles per year according to the US DOT and industry sources. That's 39 miles a day, which means someone is driving way more than me to keep up the average, and I thank them. The average electric car consumes 0.346 kWh/mile. So that's 13.5 kWh per day. A home electric car charger takes exactly as much power as a 240 VAC clothes dryer, 7,200 W. So, charging a car is like running a clothes dryer for 1.9 hours in the middle of the night. That does not put a burden on the power grid, and it is not a problem for most houses. The average U.S. household has 1.88 vehicles, including light trucks and whatnot. I guess the average of 14,263 miles applies to all of them, in which case electric cars would mean running the equivalent of a dryer for 3.5 hours a night. Still not a big deal. As things now stand, this would consume more fuel and more primary energy at electric power generators, but not a huge amount more. You can see why power companies love electric cars, and they are promoting them. They are taking business away from the oil companies.


    13.5 kWh * 1.88 vehicles = 25.38 kWh. The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is 13.75 cents/kWh. So that's $3.49 per day. However, the power companies offer a big discount for recharging electric cars at night, with a smart meter. It is practically free in Atlanta, and in parts of Texas, it is actually 100% free, where they have lots of wind power. (They charge a flat fee as well.) In Atlanta they offer as "Super Off-peak" rate for electric cars of -- get this! -- 1 cent/kWh. That's from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. So that's 25 cents per day. The power company figures it will cost you $19 a month to charge a car (60 cents/day), versus $107 for gasoline. See:


    Plug-In Electric Vehicle
    www.georgiapower.com


    14,263 miles * 1.88 vehicles = 26,814 miles driven per year. New cars get 36 mpg, but the average U.S. vehicle is older and there are many light trucks which get terrible mileage. I think the national average is 24.2 mpg. So that's 1108 gallons per year, or 3 gallons per day. When gas was cheaper in the fourth quarter 2021 before the Ukraine war, it cost $3.33/gallon. So that's close to $10 per day.

    @Shane

    You left off the thinkers and analyzers. In the 1970's I became interested in backyard wind power (less than 20 foot diameter). Nothing came of it at the time. But after that hypocritical politician invented the internet I spent a couple years figuring out how the windmill works. Forget the airfoils. It's the pressure difference between the front and back that drives it. That's why those old water pumpers worked. I tried to convince others of that, to no avail. Everybody comes to the table wearing their biases on their sleeve, just like on this site.

    Folks, I think the nuclear energy discussion here is interesting, but this thread is for LENR vs solar / wind and other so called “green” technologies and Nuclear is not green by any stretch of imagination. So I think we can either create another thread for discussing of Current conventional nuclear technologies and their pros / cons or just return back to thread topic.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Thanks 1

    Wyttenbach Apparently the new world record for solar panel efficiency has been set-at 43% efficiency and is on the website of PhysOrg.com. I am having difficulties in copy/pasting with my new chrome-book, but just GOOGLE PhysOrg.com - new record of solar-panel efficiency which puts it about equal to photosynthesis by some forms of plant-life chlorophyll efficiency!

    Quote from sam12

    Not a Win For Wind.

    That's absurd. The smoke and steam from coal fired plants and nuclear plants kills orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines do. Mirror windows in buildings kill even more.


    Bird kills with turbines can be reduced with various techniques, such as painting stripes on the blades.

    Quote from sam12

    Not a Win For Wind.


    https://phys.org/news/2022-04-…ompany-eagles-guilty.html

    Natural selection will also mean that in x generation almost no eagles will be killed, if this now is a problem. Just standardize markings on them and the birds will learn how to

    avoid them. Every year I have to take care of a few birds that fly into my windows. I have a friend that is a bird lower but he certainly does not complain about the windmills,

    which placement we do try to placing in such a way that we minimize bird death. Also Increasing temperatures will likely lead to a new mass extinction. If 1500 eagles

    cost 1.5 million its not going to be a cheap deal for the oil companies.

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.