LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Nowhere ever in history has an increase in "cheap" solar and wind energy every results in LOWER prices.

    Your are spin-clown. History is a dimension that is far away for solar, wind.


    In reality wind is much cheaper than nuclear same for solar.


    But you always find idiots that will promote solar in polar regions or wind in deserts...


    Coal and gas is the most expensive form of energy as we will pay with our planet at the end.


    But for a standard greedy investor this is no problem. He will be dead when it happens...

    funny story. back in the day I tried to use it for a small AC unit in my camper. added more and more of them thinking it would run in the day time, Seems I did not have roof space to add what was needed or flip out units, or room around the ground of the camper lol

    never did keep an AC running for very long with banks of battery's and pans all over the place just the TV and light.

    but it was fun attempting it.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Since we are talking about the ocean, some of you might like my friend Russ George's latest video on ocean restoration.


    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.

    The Ironman. and all his critics and

    supporters.Reminds me of Rossi.


    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.

    Look at retail price vs. percent wind and solar and get back to me

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Buy some Sunpower panels with included inverter. https://us.sunpower.com/homeow…quinox-home-solar-systems

    6m2 should work for you!

    After the attempt I lost interest. I keep some units to charge up battery's for small stuff but that's it

    Its all looks good on paper. https://shopsolarkits.com/prod…aPW-5S-Lrk4BoCJtQQAvD_BwE

    its unlikely I will attempt it again after that attempt.

    Quote from Seatrout

    Its all looks good on paper. https://shopsolarkits.com/prod…aPW-5S-Lrk4BoCJtQQAvD_BwE

    You possibly did misread what they intented you to misread::

    It's also totally overpriced.

    The inverter is just cheating you a 10x power that is not provided by 3 outdated panels (200W ??).

    Be aware that 200W is rated for 1000W Solar! So around +- 30 degrees north/south during midday and vertical exposition..


    1 x 4,000 Watt Pure Sine Wave Inverter/Charger (12V Split-Phase 120/240V Output) - 2-Year Warranty3 x 200 Watt 12V Monocrystalline Solar Panels - 25-Year Power Output WarrantyChoice of 12V Battery Bank: 2 x LiFePO4 - 10-Year Warranty - or 2 x AGM - 5-Year Warranty

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Look at retail price vs. percent wind and solar and get back to me

    What does that mean? I do not understand this statement. What retail price, and what percent of what?


    Wind is far cheaper than nuclear power. Especially in the U.S. where the Georgia nuclear plant fiasco bankrupted Toshiba. You would be insane to try to build a nuke here. That is why the power companies are adding 46 GW of mainly solar and wind. They are not stupid. They know how to do arithmetic.


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

    You can do a country by country comparison with the % of renewables on the Y axis and the retail price of electricity on the x-axis. Then you do the regression and you can see the R^2 and correlation. If your hypothesis is correct that wind and solar are much cheaper sources of power then the regression should show a general decrease in retail prices as the share of wind and solar increase in a given country. If you care to examine the data as I have described you find the correlation exists but it is positive, not negative as your hypothesis states, i.e. the more wind and solar a country uses, the higher the net cost of electricity to the customers. We must understand why this relationship is the opposite of what common sense tells us it should be. The answer is that you are conflating value with cost. Both solar and wind power are nothing but parasites sucking away future revenue of legacy fossil fuel powered plants but the kicker is they do not replace them. They are required to keep staff, maintain machinery, and be ready to fire up at the moment there is not enough wind and solar to deliver sufficient power to the grid. Essentially its like a restaurant that has to keep buying food, paying rent and employees but you force them to lock their doors when most customers come to eat.


    For power generators, you are depriving them of their key revenue source during peak power periods when retail prices are highest. Solar and wind power producers and operators are laughing all the way to the bank that the green nonsense has allowed them to steal future revenues from the fossil fueled generators without actually replacing them. Retail prices pay the cost for the total system loss of capacity factor. If you care to check your cognitive dissonance at the door and examine the data with your sharp mind I know you have, you will eventually see what I see.


    I took this data from EU as it was the easiest to find and fairly trustworthy. But you can see the more renewable power, the higher the retail cost of electricity. If your hypothesis was true the countries showing the higher percentage of wind and solar would show a negative regression here.


    This also explains why in certain areas like California that is about as green as one can get that the state government has voted to stop renewable subsidies and tax breaks, which has perplexed many greens in that state. When I have more time I would be happy to publish my sources and raw data but for purposes of this discussion I hope you at least see that there is some substance to my argument that deserves further consideration.


    >If your hypothesis is correct that wind and solar are much cheaper sources of power then the regression should show a general decrease in retail prices as the share of wind and solar increase in a given country.


    If I have understood correctly in the UK, consumer electricity prices are pinned (artificially) to the oil price and therefore this isn't seen. Would be great if this was confirmed by someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

    Such individual country issues surely exist. But the trend across a broad range of countries goes the wrong way. Whatever the excuse is, if the premise of cheap renewable energy is true so far the market has yet to show those ephemeral “benefits”.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    the more wind and solar a country uses, the higher the net cost of electricity to the customers.

    The reason for that is obvious and it has nothing to do with the fundamental cost. It does not mean that wind and solar are inherently more expensive. It means that people in wealthy countries spend more for everything, including energy. Americans pay more for energy than people in other countries because we can afford to pay. We get deluxe energy. We also pay more for food, water, rent and everything else. Our energy sources are cleaner and more efficient. People in poor countries and places like Russia pay little for energy because the government subsidizes the cost and because the energy is filthy and it kills many people from pollution.


    There is no way US power companies would be investing so much more in solar than other sources if solar energy actually costs more. Power company executives are not fools or lunatics. They know much more about energy and energy costs than you do.


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

    Global end-use spending on energy now $6.8 trillion


    It is difficult to find out how much the world spends on energy.


    Years ago I estimated the worldwide cost of energy was around $6.4 trillion. That is how much fossil fuel companies and electric power companies charge end-users. That includes all end-users: consumers, corporations, armies and governments.


    Recently I looked at various sources such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Monetary Fund and various other places. A widely reported number shows the global price of energy index.


    Global price of Energy index
    fred.stlouisfed.org


    That is the cost of energy indexed to the cost in 2016. This is not helpful because it does not say what the cost was in 2016! I am looking for information on the dollar cost, not the relative cost.


    I think this is what I am looking for. It is in line with the data I found years ago. This is "Global end-use spending on energy, 2000-2020" from the iea:


    Global end-use spending on energy, 2000-2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
    Global end-use spending on energy, 2000-2020 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
    www.iea.org


    For 2019, it shows trillions of US dollars:


    Coal0.2
    Gas0.6
    Power sector2.8
    Oil3.2
    Total6.8


    This graph is from:

    World Energy Investment 2020 – Analysis - IEA
    World Energy Investment 2020 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
    www.iea.org


    The numbers for gas and coal are low. This leads me to think most of the cost of gas and coal are included in the Power Sector. Unfortunately they do not explain the methodology. But there is no way global spending on coal was only $200 billion. I think it was $442 billion. 7.9 billion tons * $56/ton.


    Coal facts


    Oil is the most expensive by far. I assume this is because most oil is produced by end-users. Very little electricity is generated with oil.


    Energy is subsidized by governments. The IMF estimates that total subsidies amount to $5.9 trillion. There are two kinds of subsidies: explicit subsidies undercharging for supply, and undercharging for environmental costs and consumption taxes. Explicit subsidies are a percent of the total, or $0.5 trillion. So that brings global direct costs for energy up to $7.3 trillion.


    https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Solar and wind inject massive inefficiencies into the system and in the end consumers pay for these inefficiencies.

    Invisible inefficiencies. We pay less than we used to, and power companies charge less for wind and solar. In Texas they charge nothing for wind at night. The power companies are not losing money. So where do these inefficiencies show up? What part of the economy? If consumers and power companies are not paying for them, who is? Why are the power companies retiring coal and other sources, and rapidly increasing wind and solar?


    It seems you think you know much more about energy costs than power company experts do. You think you have found inefficiencies that no economist or energy expert sees. You are suffering the Dunning Kruger effect.

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.