The question arises though are hydrinos in his model equivalent to ultra-dense hydrogen in Leif Holmlid's model of the Universe?
There is only one form of dense Hydrogen (H) most now call H*. Neither Mills model nor QM is able to describe it as both are based on historical thinking.
H*-H* is a weak nuclear bond you only can understand in the framework of SO(4) physics.
Randall Mills is an exceptional theorist and has encyclopaedic experimental evidence to back his claims. The question arises though are hydrinos in his model equivalent to ultra-dense hydrogen in Leif Holmlid's model of the Universe?
Are they both wrong? Perhaps the 3 families of the standard model are three dimensions of interactions of a gravity parameter and quantum mechanics.
THE 2022 OPPENHEIMER LECTURE: THE QUANTUM ORIGINS OF GRAVITY - YouTube
Ask Ethan: Could extracting wind energy change the weather? - Big Think
I sent a nitpicking critique to this author. I couldn't help myself! I wrote as follows:
I would like to quibble with one statement in your essay:
I have spent a lot of time looking at the EIA data, and I talked with some of the people there. This statement of yours is somewhat off the mark:
QuoteCurrently, just for the United States (as of 2020), we consume about 3.7 trillion kilowatt-hours of energy per year, and only about 3% of that energy comes from wind power. If we wanted to replace the carbon dioxide-generating fossil fuels that we presently use with wind power, where a whopping 79% of our energy comes from fossil fuels (35% oil, 34% natural gas, and 10% coal), we’d need to increase our wind capacity by a factor of a little bit more than 25, which means for every 1 megawatt wind turbine we presently have, we’d need to build 25 more.
It is true that oil is 35% of primary energy. However, almost all oil is used in transportation, mainly automobiles. As I expect you know, automobiles are extremely inefficient. Most of the energy ends up as waste heat. If we were to replace all gasoline cars with electric cars, primary energy consumption for transportation would be reduced by a factor of 3 to 5. Look at the EPA "MPG" ratings for electric cars. For the Tesla it is:
130 MPGe 136 123 combined city/hwy city hwy 26 kWh/100 mi
Of course the car does not actually get "miles per gallon" from gasoline. No one generates electricity with gasoline. The EIA people told me that is based on the average efficiency of power company combustion generators. That does not exactly apply to wind or solar, but they have to use something to compare apples to oranges.
The average new passenger car in the U.S. gets 25.4 MPG, so that's 5.6 times more primary energy. Meaning it would be, if all primary energy for electricity was coal and natural gas. That is the same metric they use here:
You see that hydro and solar have input units of primary energy. That does not make a lot of sense. The EIA people told me they use a fudge factor based on combustion efficiency.
Anyway, if all cars were powered by electricity, instead of using 23.4 quads for transportation, we would use around 4.7 quads, so it would take many fewer wind turbines than you estimated.
Wind turbines output varies, but they could recharge automobiles at night with smart meters. I estimated that recharging the average electric car for the average distance driven per day by Americans is approximately equivalent to running a clothes dryer for about 2 hours. That isn't much. The power distribution grid could easily support that at night.
I don't know how much electricity prices have inflated in the USA, but here in the UK my monthly bill has increased from £89-00 to £352-00, which is on the cheapest economy 7 tariff from EDF. Is this reflecting the Global Increase in Energy Costs or is it a glitch in the system? Boris Johnson keeps saying he's going to fix this rampant inflation - but it makes petrol cars cheaper to run than electric models, in particular the new fuel-injected Toyotas.
I don't know how much electricity prices have inflated in the USA, but here in the UK my monthly bill has increased from £89-00 to £352-00, which is on the cheapest economy 7 tariff from EDF. Is this reflecting the Global Increase in Energy Costs or is it a glitch in the system?
I believe this is mainly caused by the sudden increase in natural gas prices, caused by the war in Ukraine. I expect the EU and UK will adjust their consumption and sources of fuel, and they will accelerate the change over to wind and solar. Perhaps the Germans will temporarily shelve their plans to stop using nukes. Anyway, in a year or two, I expect European energy prices will fall.
I expect the EU and UK will adjust their consumption and sources of fuel,
Actually we are being ripped off. The UK electricity market (which has a bid/offer system and forward contracts like a stock market). has decided that the market bottom is set by the base price of the most expensive forms of generation entirely ignoring the fact that wind, solar, and nuclear cost the same as they did before the Ukraine war.
ETA- renewables and nuclear provided 59% of our electricity in 2021.
Back in the day- synergy energy offer, that just could not be, was unreal with a shop running 440 -3
and was 1/4 of the market price.
that's about when I knew things are not as they seem.
These flowcharts from Lawrence Livermore are great! Have a look.
Charting the Complex Relationships among
Energy, Water, and Carbon
How to get floating solar power rightCovering 10% of the world’s reservoirs with ‘floatovoltaics’ would install capacity equivalent to all electricity-generating fossil-fuel plants in operation worldwide. Floating solar panels have benefits: the water’s cooling effect makes them more efficient than land-based ones. They don’t interfere with desert ecosystems. They keep precious water from evaporating. And putting panels over existing hydropower reservoirs can help them do double duty as water- and sun-powered energy sources. But the possible environmental and social downsides “remain largely unexplored in both concept and practice”, note ten energy researchers and analysts. Even though reservoirs are artificial ecosystems, they provide habitats for wildlife and have an important role in fisheries and recreation. Nature | 10 min read |
How to get floating solar power right
Covering 10% of the world’s reservoirs with ‘floatovoltaics’ would install capacity equivalent to all electricity-generating fossil-fuel plants in operation worldwide. Floating solar panels have benefits: the water’s cooling effect makes them more efficient than land-based ones. They don’t interfere with desert ecosystems. They keep precious water from evaporating. And putting panels over existing hydropower reservoirs can help them do double duty as water- and sun-powered energy sources. But the possible environmental and social downsides “remain largely unexplored in both concept and practice”, note ten energy researchers and analysts. Even though reservoirs are artificial ecosystems, they provide habitats for wildlife and have an important role in fisheries and recreation.
Nature | 10 min read
These solutions have been around for many decades, yet here we are still with little to show for all the talk. Yes, things have been and are being done, but not nearly on the scale we desperately need.
Also, I see the expected "buts" in this article, which is the buzz word for "do not expect this to really happen anytime soon". For every BUT, there are dozens of environmental groups, and impacted communities just waiting to block with a lawsuit. Very frustrating.
"six big challenges towards a green energy transition"
Der Schwindel mit dem E-Auto | Hans-Werner Sinn
Ich denke der Schwindler ist hier der Author.
E-Autos brauchen etwa 1/6 des CO2/km als ein Diesel.
The German car manufacturer always find an idiot that produces claims to help them. Of course E-cars cannot use the old coal power plants because their output is far to small to cope with the future E-fleet. The target always was to use excess or solar to load the cars batteries.
The car industry in German is the backbone mafia of the German state actively suppressing wind power and promoting over motorizes heavy cars. They invented the Diesel lie and bribed the government to lower Diesel prizes by about 15% to shed people into the most dirty cars, that now burn fertilizer that is missing in development countries...
Some members may find things of interest here.
Dear Alan,
Thank you for attending/registering for IIoT World Energy Day which took place this week, June 8, 2022. As promised, below are the links to the event recordings.
I hope you enjoyed the event as much as we did. We received great feedback, so thank you for that!
I would vote to SAVE the Wright Whales and build the turbines on land instead. The whole Gulf of Mexico should be made a conservation area, but this is only my opinion since this is where the Gulf Stream originates and keeps our West Coast warm and bountiful in wildlife in the oceans and on land. Or if you want to be Science-y apparently the Gulf Stream has almost already slowed down by one third of its pace from the turn of the last century due to Global Warming, with no way in sight of reversing this trend.
Since we are talking about the ocean, some of you might like my friend Russ George's latest video on ocean restoration.
The purpose of this analysis is to assess the viability of
using solar energy (and renewable energy in general)
for the decarbonisation of steel manufacturing and
to identify the boundary conditions for this approach
to become economically feasible.
Given that the analysis focuses only on one available
technology, the results of this report should not be seen
as a recommendation of the best available solution for the
decarbonisation of steel but rather as an attempt to provide
deeper insight specifically targeting the use of renewable
hydrogen for steelmaking.
Although there are many pathways to produce clean hydrogen,
this analysis includes exclusively hydrogen produced from
renewable energy – mostly solar PV, hence not all conclusions
might be equally applicable for hydrogen-based DRI/EAF
projects which use other sources of hydrogen.
all in all, the total anthropogenic carbon flux is about 4% of the total. There is another 96% of the equation people are ignoring. NASA's data on total forest coverage and total chlorophyll has shown a massive benefit from increased CO2 that can't be explained from any other reason. The real problem is how we continue to pollute the oceans which are the true world's lungs (not the rain forests) due to the action of diatoms. Literally all of life on the globe is based on diatom photosynthesis and increased CO2 is not showing the improved photosynthesis as the land is showing. This simple fact points to a huge area for economic CO2 remediation (let's see if we can improve oceanic diatom carbon fixation rather than pummeling ourselves back to the stone age with poorly thought out carbon fuel limitations).
I don't have time to debate this issue further so I am going to do a drive-by shooting here. Nowhere ever in history has an increase in "cheap" solar and wind energy every results in LOWER prices. This simple fact ignored by many very clever people dumbfounds me. Read my lips, "never" means never ever ever. The reason is simple. Intermittency. The cost of this is hand-waved away by many. From a societal perspective, the billions invested in dispatchable electricity infrastructure simply loses its future revenue to all the diesel and coal powered mining and manufacturing in China which finally ends up and artificially green washed, extremely diffuse and just as environmentally harmful wind and solar generators. Peer reviewed, published analyses of net energy gain shows the energy budget for wind and solar is not as positive as most believe. Check your cognitive dissonance at the door and do some research on Google scholar if you don't believe these claims. The depth of the challenges we face for hydrogen conversion are much much much bigger than most people currently believe. I was invited to give a talk to an oil company recently and at that meeting many authoritative hydrogen experts testified to this very issue. Oil companies are currently in a state of panic and are extremely focus on investing in sustainable energy infrastructure but they have no idea what to actually do other than follow the heard heading full speed for a high cliff.
I am about as anti-nuclear as one can get (fission nukes that is) but what the world's scientists need to focus on if we are going to be a happy society is 1) focus on existing advanced nuclear, 2) fusion like TAE technologies, 3) carbon fixing utilizing oceanic diatoms (this means building more waste water treatment plants to reduce organic carbon influx to the seas), 4) moonshot technologies like LENR research funding.
Sorry for my rant and I don't have time to respond to this thread further. Anyone with intellectual honesty doing diligent research should come to these same conclusions if one is not brainwashed by the massive amounts of pseudoscience out there.
QED
