LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • A somewhat sad statement at the end of this piece. Take it up (politely) with [email protected].


    Despite the hype, we shouldn’t bank on nuclear fusion to save the world from climate catastrophe


    The revelation that researchers had succeeded in creating a nuclear fusion reaction that generated more energy than it consumed made reassuring reading last week. For almost half a century, I have reported on scientific issues and no decade has been complete without two or three announcements by scientists claiming their work would soon allow science to recreate the processes that drive the sun. The end result would be the generation of clean, cheap nuclear fusion that would transform our lives.

    Such announcements have been rare recently, so it gave me a warm glow to realise that standards may be returning to normal. By deploying a set of 192 lasers to bombard pellets of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, researchers at the US National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, California, were able to generate temperatures only found in stars and thermonuclear bombs. The isotopes then fused into helium, releasing excess energy, they reported.

    It was a milestone event but not a major one, although this did not stop the US government and swaths of the world’s media indulging in a widespread hyping jamboree over the laboratory’s accomplishment. Researchers had “overcome a major barrier” to reaching fusion, the BBC gushed, while the Wall Street Journal described the achievement as a breakthrough that could herald an era of clean, cheap energy.

    It is certainly true that nuclear fusion would have a beneficial impact on our planet by liberating vast amounts of energy without generating high levels of carbon emissions and would be an undoubted boost in the battle against climate change.

    The trouble is that we have been presented with such visions many times before. In 1958, Sir John Cockcroft claimed his Zeta fusion project would supply the world with “an inexhaustible supply of fuel”. It didn’t.


    In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had achieved fusion using simple laboratory equipment, work that made global headlines but which has never been replicated.


    Despite the hype, we shouldn’t bank on nuclear fusion to save the world from climate catastrophe | Robin McKie
    Last week’s experiment in the US is promising, but it’s not a magic bullet for our energy needs
    www.theguardian.com

  • Both tokomak / stellerator and ICF fusion are longer from commercialisation than business plans would have you believe - but they are competitive now as things that will work eventually, and both have known and measurable technology needed to get to commercial use. Scaling factors are well understood (and for scaling with now achievable higher B fields has actually got better now than initila approximate theory said). No whoo-whoo. The IVF people have been dismissed as "it can't work" for so long that thye are now trying to reset PR with this vacuous milestone.


    Even though the milestone is vacuous - and ICF barriers to commercialisation are many - the ICF progress towards higher Q has so far been spectacular. So worth watching.


    You only have to look at wind or PVs or batteries to see that consistent R&D money pays off in terms of better technology - for PVs that was faster than anyone expected and I hope and think the same will be the same for batteries. Batteries are now only just starting to benefit from real technological innovation.


    In which case it puts into perspective the base load arguments: nuclear vs tidal (can't do baseload well because as neap tides output is much lower) vs batteries. vs pumped hydro vs concentrated solar or heat pump based heat storage. PV is now clearly cheaper (where land is cheap) than anything else including fossil fuels - if the intermittency and grid supply issues could be solved.


    I'd put my money on batteries simply because these show the most possibility of technological improvement and there are so many active research directions with promise. Oh, and active price-incentive-based smart demand-management. And higher energy/weight batteries at a lower price - all achievable - will allow EVs to take over nearly all transport sectors.


    We have a lot of things to hope for in the future - space-based PV beaming down power, transcontinental HVDC or superconducting DC electricity supply grids with PV in deserts, etc.


    THH

  • Both tokomak / stellerator and ICF fusion are longer from commercialisation than business plans would have you believe - but they are competitive now as things that will work eventually, and both have known and measurable technology needed to get to commercial use.

    This is just a clowns opinion and contains no grain of truth... Both technologies are nonsensical approaches for fusing e.g.D-D. Nobody with the slightest clue of physics will ever believe that >10MeV neutrons are an adequate heat source...


    Only z-pinch fusion has a slight chance of success.

  • A somewhat sad statement at the end of this piece. Take it up (politely) with [email protected].

    I sent him my usual message --



    Greetings.


    You wrote:

    Quote
    In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had achieved fusion using simple laboratory equipment, work that made global headlines but which has never been replicated.

    That is incorrect. Fleischmann and Pons were replicated in over 180 major laboratories, and these replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Many of these replications were at very high signal to noise ratios, such as 10 to 100 W of heat produced continuously for a month, or the detection of 10E16 atoms of tritium. Such results are incontrovertible.


    Here is a list of replications reported by September 1990:

    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf



    Here is a list of peer-reviewed papers in cold fusion, not all positive:

    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BritzDcoldnuclea.pdf



    Here is an overview of the research:

    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

  • We have a lot of things to hope for in the future - space-based PV beaming down power, transcontinental HVDC or superconducting DC electricity supply grids with PV in deserts, etc.

    If cold fusion succeeds, none of that will be necessary. That is why it will eventually be hundreds of times cheaper than any other source of energy.


    Cold fusion is closer to success than most people realize, especially you, since you do not even realize it exists.

  • If FuseQ reaches Q=1 ... I guess there will be some news...hype...

    About
    Zap first achieved fusion in 2018 and is targeting scientific energy breakeven on our new FuZE-Q platform.
    www.zapenergy.com

    TM 1:09:49

    what's the cost of the electricity?

    yeah right right so everybody has to have that model um it's just you know goes along with

    the game and you know any uh any stakeholder or any investor is going to ask you about that

    you know to tell the truth i think a lot of it is a little bit of um bs but you know you do your best;;


    ;you know we've calculated five cents per kilowatt hour

    but you know i'm not going to stand by that necessarily there's a lot between here and then

    and i think if anybody tells you what their LCOE is in the fusion industry you should treat it the same way so uh

    there's there's a lot of mileage between now and there ..

    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.

  • 60% wind is a lot. Many years ago, experts in the U.S. predicted that wind could not exceed ~30% because of intermittency problems. (I think it was ~30%.) They said the distribution grid had to be modernized to allow higher percentages. Evidently, the grid was improved, because in some places wind is now way above 30%.

  • 60% wind is a lot. Many years ago, experts in the U.S. predicted that wind could not exceed ~30% because of intermittency problems. (I think it was ~30%.) They said the distribution grid had to be modernized to allow higher percentages. Evidently, the grid was improved, because in some places wind is now way above 30%.

    What is needed is much better long-term and short-term grid storage.


    The technologies for this (big batteries + various non-battery alt storage methods) are in very active development, and getting better all the time. In principle there is nothing to stop them getting MUCH cheaper - as PV did when we gave it money and install volume. The process has been slower than would be good for political reasons - countries do not want to be first movers and pay more when they have FF base load solutions. (And some countries have perfectly good nuclear or hydro base load solutions).


    Politicians and economists always tend to underestimate the way that technology can reduce costs given research over a long period and a guarantee of large supply volumes. They underestimated wind and PV. They are, now, underestimating batteries.


    Technology and install volume together can make a big difference to almost anything - what about (deep) geothermal? The "renewable energy for base load" solution.


    Why we are entering the golden decade for geothermal
    In a feature report on geothermal, Baker Hughes shares its views on why and how geothermal will certainly play an increased role in global energy in the next…
    www.thinkgeoenergy.com



    THH

  • This month, the world's gigafactory pipeline out to 2031 surpassed 8 TWh, as assessed by Benchmark. This is 60% higher than the total pipeline at the start of this year. Although China remains at the top of this capacity build-out, North America and Europe are both building pace, increasing their respective pipelines by 49% and 40%.


    Last week, Zimbabwe banned the export of unprocessed lithium ores in a bid to tackle individual artisanal mining in the country. The ban also ensures that any projects due to come online will, at the very least, process the ore into concentrate to capture more of the value-add. Find out how this could impact the country's lithium here.


    The most-read story of 2022 is from April, when the capacity of the gigafactory pipeline first exceeded 6 TWh. All these gigafactories will increase the demand for raw materials. A Benchmark infographic from September was one of the most-read stories of the year, and explored how many mines will be needed to meet this demand (at least 300).


    Lithium's record-breaking price rise has been a key topic this year. Benchmark's explanation of why lithium is expected to remain in a structural shortage until at least 2025 was our fourth most-read article of 2022.


    North America was the focus of two of Benchmark's top reads this year. Quebec became a hub for the battery midstream as cathode producers including BASF and a joint venture by GM and Posco announced plants in the province, as we reported in March.


    But the big story in North America this year came from the US with the far-reaching and ambitious Inflation Reduction Act in August.

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.