I am never forget the day I first meet the great

Lobachevsky. In one word he told me secret of success in

mathematics: Plagiarize!

Plagiarize

Let no one else's work evade your eyes

Remember why the good Lord made your eyes

So don't shade your eyes

But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -

Only be sure always to call it please 'research'

I am not surprised their economy depends on fossil fuels, and Russia economically is not doing to well in comparison to others. Sad many concede to producing fake literature/research for money/clout.

President Putin against energy conservation and green technologies (Download Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 13, 2017 No. 208 "On the Strategy for Economic Security of the Russian Federation for the period until 2030" Section II "Challenges and threats to economic security"

To the main challenges and threats to economic security relate:

6) the change in the structure of global demand for energy resources and Structure of their consumption, development of energy-saving technologies and Reduction of material intensity, development of "green technologies";

Quote from Alan Smith

Someone emailed me the other day, pointing out that 50,000 tons of scrapped and allegedly un-recyclable fibreglass wind turbine blades are being landfilled every year, I gave him this figure to ponder. 'Coal ash is one of the largest types of industrial waste generated in the United States. According to the American Coal Ash Association's Coal Combustion Product Production & Use Survey Report, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in 2014.'

Coal ash is also mildly radioactive and toxic! We all know that though solar and wind are better than coal, some other form of extracting energy from common elements directly (super chemical and/or nuclear) is best. We need to contend with perhaps economically motivated fake fur hat research as well 😣. God go with us🙏🏽.

Quote from Alan Smith

Someone emailed me the other day, pointing out that 50,000 tons of scrapped and allegedly un-recyclable fibreglass wind turbine blades are being landfilled every year,

In my opinion, 50,000 tons of scrapped fiberglass per year is not a significant problem. It will not have an impact, and it will not cost much to deal with, relative to the value of the energy generated by the turbine blades during their lifetime.

Reasons:

Fiberglass is made of plastic and glass. These are inert, non-toxic materials. They will not leach into the water table or cause other problems. It is better have a million tons of inert, not-toxic solid waste then 10,000 tons of dangerous materials, especially liquids or radwaste.

The U.S. generates 262 million tons of solid waste per year, and recycles 68 million. The net increase is about 194 million tons. 50,000 tons is 0.03% of that. The U.S. is not running out of landfill space, and it will not for centuries. Long before that becomes a problem, robotic recycling will improve and a far larger fraction of the materials will be re-used. We think of landfills as a burden, but it is likely that people generations from now will consider them a free source of valuable raw materials.

Wind now produces 7% of U.S. electricity. This can probably be increased to around 30% with today's technology, which would be almost enough to close the remaining coal plants. * The limit is ~30% mainly because wind is concentrated in the center of the continent, and there is no way to transmit electricity from North Dakota to Georgia. If there were, we could have roughly ~40% wind electricity, which is how much Iowa has. I believe that is the highest percent of any state.

Anyway, with 30%, the burden of solid waste would increase by a factor of 4, to 200,000 tons. That is still not a serious problem. It can be dealt with with today's disposal systems. It would not add much to the cost of electricity.

The potential energy from wind far exceeds today's total demand. If wind were used to produce synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuel, instead of electricity, North and South Dakota alone could produce more fuel than all of OPEC does. This is not cost effective with today's technology, but there is enough energy to do it.

* Coal is declining rapidly in the U.S. because natural gas and wind are cheaper. It has stabilized in China, which is the largest user. I predict it will soon begin to decline rapidly there.

Based on the performance numbers wind and ground based solar are temporary or niche solutions in the big picture. A safe compact nonintermitent energy source (condensed matter hydrogen reactions), or better use of understood nuclear energy, would be much more enabling and freeing than getting energy from natural weather systems on a large scale. Solar, wind, and geothermal are cool but they aren't the reason I joined this forum! A massive controlled release of energy that isn't weather, geography, fossil fuel or atmosphere dependant would be preferred for anywhere there is water/methane and certain common elemental deposits. Don't you think so?

Quote from LeBob

based on the performance numbers wind and ground based solar are temporary or niche solutions in the big picture.

As soon as you can reliably (50 days at least) store 100kWh for a few 1000$ the game for large grids is over. But for people in northern states in large cities there will be grid forever.

The USA is well connected with oil pipelines. These can be reused for long distance DC high power lines. The construction of ground lines is more expensive but can be done much faster and the lines are finally more reliable (storms, arcing etc.)

Quote from LeBob

Based on the performance numbers wind and ground based solar are temporary or niche solutions in the big picture. A safe compact nonintermitent energy source (condensed matter hydrogen reactions), or better use of understood nuclear energy, would be much more enabling and freeing than getting energy from natural weather systems on a large scale.

Sure! Cold fusion is much better, and at least 200 times cheaper. See:

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

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

However, if it does not work, wind and solar are better than conventional fission, coal or gas. Conventional fission reactors are dangerous, as we learned in Fukushima. And they cost too much, as we are learning in Georgia.

Quote from Max Nozin

Wind and solar held back by storage. I bet on hydrogen.

Storage problems limit wind to around 40%, as in Iowa. Decades ago, experts thought that 20% was the limit. Hydrogen can be used to store wind or solar energy.

Storage solar power is a problem in some climates, but not so much in others. For example, in places like Nevada, a large fraction of electricity is used for air conditioning, and the peak demand for air conditioning comes when sunlight is strongest. In other words, solar power peaks at the same time demand peaks. That is not the case in places like Vladivostok or Ithaca, NY.

Well a cheap solid state battery with atleast 1kw/kg would mop the floor as well! I agree hydrogen is a key part of any energy equation!

Quote from Max Nozin

There is not a single commercial cold fusion device. And sadly may never be. Lets be realistic.

How do we go about being "realistic" in response to this? What is a realistic response? There are no commercial cold fusion devices because of academic politics. If scientists had done their jobs and acted rationally in 1989, we would have had cold fusion automobiles by 2000, and global warming would no longer be an issue today. The problems were never technical, commercial, or a lack of funding. The world is drowning in stupid venture capital money. The way forward has been clear to the experts since 1990. Heck, even I could specify an R&D program that is 95% certain of commercializing cold fusion, given a few hundred million dollars. Okay, maybe a billion dollars. Use semiconductor material R&D equipment.

The problem is politics and emotion. Such things can change overnight. Or they may never change. How can we be "realistic" about raw emotions? Cold fusion was stopped by ignorance, jealousy, hate, fear of the future, fear of novelty, and other deeply rooted primate emotions. The same kinds of emotions that motivated Japanese leaders to attack Pearl Harbor. You can't make "realistic" predictions about the darkest, most irrational aspects of human nature.

Quote from Max Nozin

the realistic response is short in the first place. Ideally it is yes or no.

Yes or no, what? What are you saying "yes" about?

Quote from Max Nozin

If you have to write paragraphs to explain the situation you should already sense a problem in it

Okay, so write a haiku explaining why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Or fully explore the origins of the First World War in a Tweet. Give us a Tweet accurately summarizing the 2008 economic crash, or the Fukushima disaster. If you think a situation as complicated as cold fusion can be summarized in a paragraph, show us how it is done with those other tragic events.