BlackRock, Inc — World’s Largest Asset Management Company — ‘Closely Following’ LENR

Thanks to an E-Cat World reader for finding the following and sharing it.

BlackRock Inc. is the world’s largest asset management company, managing over $4 trillion in assets for pension funds, corporate accounts, and individual investors.

The BlackRock Investment Institute is a research and analysis arm of BlackRock which looks at the global investment picture and tries to anticipate trends and opportunities for its clients. In June 2012 BlackRock Investment Institute published a document called “US Shale Boom: A Case of (Temporary) Indigestion” which looked at the rapid emergence of the United States as a leading petroleum producer, and that that might mean for global markets, and the investment opportunities it could provide.

For our purposes, the most interesting aspect of the report, is on page 11 of the document where alternative energy sources are discussed:

“We are closely following start-ups experimenting with new technologies such as low-energy nuclear reaction and fusion. If successful, these efforts could completely change the current status quo and hurt traditional energy producers. It is worth watching this space. People tend to overestimate what can be done in a year, but underestimate what can happen in a decade”

This document is now two and a half years old, so in some ways this is old news (I don’t remember seeing it before, however), but the significant thing here is, I think, that the largest investment management company in the world is ‘closely following’ developments in LENR. There has been a lot of news in the LENR field since June 2012, and most likely the analysts at BlackRock are following closely — and they may be making investment decisions based on what they are seeing, especially if they are taking a long-term view.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Let’s not make this into more than it is — this is 2.6 years old news.

    We will get everyone’s attention if we get mass replication of several hundred watts and COP more than 2; i.e. it will be the F&P Press Conference all over again. Except that this time, the hot fusion establishment will have lost at the first shot.

    Places like Blackrock are smart to sniff around even if they are in no way committed.

    • Warthog

      Given developments over the last 2.6 years, I can’t see their interest “decreasing”. The strongest proofs for reality have occurred just in the last few months (Lugano).

  • GreenWin

    Further evidence of LENR’s growing impact on energy prices. We can be sure Blackrock has downloaded several copies of the Lugano Report. These huge funds are moving investments out of fossil/fission into alternatives AND whatever LENR plays they can find. One play would be to identify Industrial Heat’s potential to introduce E-Cat heating element modules. The component parts of such elements would be a reasonable place to look for investment opportunities.

    • GreenWin

      HERE is an update from Lugano Report host Sifferkoll confirming Blackrock’s download of the Report moments after its public release:

      • bachcole

        Sort of astonishing, don’t you think?

        Yes, some very influential rich people know about LENR, or at the very least those managing the money of rich people.

        • GreenWin

          Rog, keep in mind that these funds handle billion$ in BIG pension funds – teachers, police/fire, construction, government, autoworkers, steel, etc. These are not rich people – just regular Joes who count on collecting their pension after retirement.

      • SG

        They see the writing on the wall. We see the writing on the wall. Why is it that virtually everyone else does not see the writing on the wall? It is simply perplexing. Countries are still talking of making massive investments in traditional nuclear, wind, and the like. Does anyone else feel like we are in some kind of informational twilight zone?

        • ecatworld

          The one thing that no one has seen yet is a commercial LENR product delivering energy more economically than other sources on the market. Some people won’t take LENR very seriously until we reach that point,

          • Chris, Italy

            As dumb as economists always are about economics, 😀 they are definitely wise about not letting prejudiced folks pull the wool over their eyes. What they say is the reason for the likes of Mary Yugo, whereas they’ve simply been making sure of not having excessive exposure to the fossil fuel glitch. They don’t care what causes it and why, so long as they understand what and why enough to avoid being caught off guard by it.

          • I was thinking the same thing Chris. I’m sure investors are somewhat practiced at filtering out skeptopaths.

          • SG

            Of all the answers to my question, I think Frank you are the closest. But with the amount of information now available from which replications can be readily made, and therefore knowledge of a surety of the existence of LENR+, why do the energy departments and agencies of countries large and small continue to act as if it doesn’t exist?

            Why don’t *they* produce a LENR+ product delivering energy more economically than other sources on the market, or provide grants to commercial entities to do so? Why do *they* continue to propose wasteful multibillion dollar projects on legacy technologies?

            I know we don’t live in a perfect world. But I think we as a species and a civilization can do better.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            I think that you underestimate how many people might be working on this in secret. I suggest that there are far more researchers and groups funding research on LENR than those we have heard about. in other words, of every lone wolf replicator we hear about there is probably a few guys working for blackrock in secret.
            How many LENR researchers have fallen off the grid in recent years? Why do you think that is?

          • SG

            Maybe so. But in past years, LENR researchers were unable to obtain *commercially viable* effects, and may have fallen off the grid for that reason. LENR+ holds the promise of not only commercially viable energy, but also a means for lifting billions of people out of poverty. If governments fail to swiftly add their support, it would be a moral failure on a grand scale.

          • bachcole

            Along with their support comes their dictating how things are going to happen and who is going to do it. You can’t have one without the other. So, do you still want government support?

          • SG

            It is a fair statement. Nevertheless, I expect it to unfold something like this: governments to initially pretend like LENR+ doesn’t exist (this is currently the phase we are in), then eventually investigate in secret in national labs somewhat begrudgingly, and then eventually lend their support in R&D grants to commercial enterprises. They will seek to dictate no matter what. Governments want to govern.

            It will become apparent, however, that LENR+ can be a distributed, decentralized source of energy. The “kit” market and DIY crowd will quickly make this apparent. With decentralization of energy comes decentralization of political power. With decentralization of political power comes a reduction in political corruption. With a reduction in political corruption comes a remarkable lifting of the world’s masses from drudgery and a rebalancing of power and wealth.

            It is not a redistribution of wealth, per se, but rather–a rising tide that will lift all boats and make the world a more fair and just place for all.

          • I’d be happy when the scientific community excepts something nuclear rather than chemical is going on. All down hill from there.

        • GreenWin

          “…virtually everyone else does not see the writing…” Au contraire. The public discussion and acceptance (Indian peer-reviewed Academy of Science Journal “Current Science” ) — and Russian and Swedish Academies, Norwegian Energy Council, etc. is hard evidence MANY people see the writing. However, some simply don’t want to.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          It may be some sort of deep-rooted magical thinking at subconscious level. If one relies on the good thing before it exists or speaks about it too loudly, maybe gods will take it away… Plus then one would look foolish as well.

        • mcloki

          Because there are many lives invested in keeping jobs alive in their respective fields. Until LENR starts creating jobs. manufacturing, Distributing, Sales, Installation. People will ignore it because they have bills to pay this week.

        • Omega Z

          1) Don’t count the chickens until they hatch.

          2) Don’t plan that chicken dinner until it is raised, processed & on the kitchen counter ready to be fried.

          The advent of LENR will have little real world effect in the short term with 2 caveats.
          1- Price confusion do to a lack of understanding from the public. This will shortly return to normal. Supply/Demand will continue as usual as LENR will be a long term phenomenon. It will take years to become of significance. Among Fossil fuels, Oil will be the last to feel any real effect.

          The U.S. auctions off oil leases periodically & many of these are left untouched for many years. If this happens to be leases 20+ years out, You probably paid to much if LENR comes to market. Thus you would short sell them, And buy them back at a latter time at a discounted price. Everyone involved will lose money, but it is spread out among many players in this respect. We have soft evidence that this has been taking place the last couple years. Speculating of course. We can’t know for sure.

          2- Nuclear Plant Construction will clearly take a major hit. It’s not that new nuclear plants wouldn’t operate through it’s normal life-cycle, But because I expect a public outcry about building a dangerous technology that produces waste that lingers on forever as far as people are concerned. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part. I hope not.

          • Agaricus

            Just wishful thinking, if the UK/French/Finnish experience is anything to go by. The nuclear lobbies are as powerful as ever in these countries, and even proven malfeasance has little effect.


          • Omega Z

            I agree Peter.
            That’s why people like us will have to be vigilant when the time comes & LENR is in the market. We will need to inform & educate the people. It’s a daunting task, but not so much as you may think.

            The U.S. Government studies people all the time under certain guises, but in reality is about manipulating & controlling the people. We merely need to take advantage of that research.

            You only need to educate/inform & convince 10% of the people of the facts & it will take on a life of it’s own. You can create a public outcry.
            Given Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island(TMI), the job is part way done. At least 50% of the population has concerns about Nuclear power plants. We merely need to show them a workable Viable Option.
            . . . . . .LENR Power Plants! It would only take 1 operable plant.

          • You are right that supply and demand will not change overnight.

            I think though that there might be a profound effect driven by the desire to combat climate change. I think governments around the world will accelerate plans to replace coal burning plants. If those plants can be retrofitted with E-Cat cores then that could happen very quickly.

          • Omega Z

            Once you get past the Dogma & BS, The pressure to eliminate coal plants is to force the price of electricity higher to make wind/solar appear to be cost competitive. That’s because they know that wind/solar will never be competitive when all factors are taken into account. Thus, you make fossil energy so expensive that green technology looks cheap.

            All this means nothing if LENR comes to market. But note: 30/35 years ago, the U.S. Government(Taxpayers) funded an experimental Coal fired plant.

            It used a lot of stainless steel, thus a $2 billion dollar plant nearly doubled to $4 Billion. However, it nearly doubled it’s conversion efficiency. Cost per infrastructure Kilowatt was about the same.
            CO2 output per ton of coal was reduced. CO2 per Kilowatt was reduced by at least 50%. 95% of all emissions were captured. Most of the captured emissions were processable as usable raw materials.

            Obviously, if you’ve dealt with 95% of emissions, you can then focus on chipping away at the final 5% working to reach near zero. The waste heat of these plants was of high enough quality, they could be paired up with industries the require a lot of heat. A CHP plant with the potential of 90% energy efficiency use.

            Why didn’t this technology take off. Energy companies were a little Leary because of the cost of stainless steel, but It was the Governments stance that killed it. Energy companies were more then willing to pass on overhead savings to the customer-Coal cost savings & manpower etc. However, they wanted to retain the ROI.

            Obviously this Example will be an over simplification & not an actual representation, but just to give an idea.
            I sell a product for $1– 90 cent cost/overhead, 10 cent profit.
            I reduce cost/overhead by 50%. 90 cents now becomes 45 cents.
            I want to retain my 10 cents & pass on the 45 cent savings.
            Product is now 45+10=55 cents. The Government refused to budge or even negotiate.

            This put the Energy companies in a position of doubling from $2 billion invested to $4 billion, but receiving the same rate of return as if they only invested $2 Billion. Who would even consider that. Thus the new technology wasn’t adopted.

            PS- I have zero knowledge or evidence of such, but If I were a conspiracist, I would question if the Nuclear energy proponents were behind this. It would have made Nuclear generated electricity about 300% more expensive then Coal.

            PSS- This is based on 35 year old technology. Today’s technology could probably reduce coal plant emissions by 97%. That would be comparable to eliminating 97 of every 100 coal plants emission wise & a 50% reduction of physical power plant structures.

          • Agaricus

            Something very similar is happening in the UK due to the ongoing ‘green’ fascism driving nonsensical ‘low carbon’ policies that frequently result in more CO2 being produced overall than was previously the case. As an example, wherever you travel now you see agricultural fields turned over to ‘elephant grass’ which displaces food production (usually wheat or corn) in order to produce ‘biomass’ fuel for what were coal fired power stations.

            Much worse is the ‘conversion’ of efficient modern coal boilers to inefficient, destructive and vastly more expensive wood-based fuel pellets, much of which is harvested in the US and transported 4,000 miles to be burned. Like you I suspect that the nuclear industry, which has somehow managed to get their technology branded as ‘renewable’, is behind much of this insanity.



          • Omega Z

            Sarc-But would pellets are green energy. Are you against Green. Oh My.

            Actually, If this is waste product from other necessities such as building lumber, Or clearing trees to straighten or expand a hi-way Etc, I follow the waste not, want not. But to push it as “Green” & cut trees specifically for this purpose makes me think it’s lynch time.

            I’ve seen many a trees cut, piled & burned for hi-way improvement when there was a Lumber/paper mill 40 miles away that would have payed for the hauling. Yet were forbidden by law of doing so thus they cut trees elsewhere for their needs.

            Having an interest at a young age & knowing the facts, I actually support corn/alcohol. It should & does have a net zero effect on food supply. You start with livestock feed & end with livestock feed without food production loss.

            I do have 2 issues with it. 1) They have an inefficient process & no market pressure or incentive to make it so, thanks to Government interference. 2) When they talk of, or consider corn crop replacement with switchgrass because it produces more alcohol. My lynch mentality emerges. There are hungry people in the world.

            So, At a young age, I determined we have Idiots in charge. I really want them to prove me wrong. In the mean time, I wish I had a way to place a wager on this happening. I think I could become Rich.

            Back at Wood pellets. If this was just waste product, there would be no excess to ship 4K miles. Therefore, they are specifically cutting trees to produce pellets. They are cutting down the CO2 absorption mechanism. Incidentally, they cut the so called mature trees, The ones that absorb the most CO2. How Green is That.

          • Agaricus

            The UK govt. says the timber comes from thinnings and off-cuts, but as the demand runs to over 4 million tons/year for just one large power station such as Drax in the UK, this seems rather hard to believe. There is probably a substantial ‘reclassification’ game going on behind the scenes. It seems very difficult to find anything much online about the sources of timber for the UK’s current total ‘biofuel’ demand of some 11 million tons/yr, and the idea that this kind of quantity can be produced by collecting offcuts seems unlikely.


            It’s not clear who is behind this near-cretinous ‘green’ initiative – most environmental organisations have come out strongly against the practice. A joint report published by FOE, RSPB and Greepeace concludes: “The report finds that burning whole trees actually increases CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated relative to coal by 49% over a 40 year period.



            I have to agree with your judgement of the quality of our political leaders.

  • GreenWin

    Blackrock more likely will exploit their early analysis of LENR for investment purposes. They are responsible for certain movement in oil price collapse – i.e. they, like any other smart investor are getting OUT of fossil/fission energy. Hopefully, without panicking the markets.

    • Hi all

      In reply to GreenWin

      “…Hopefully, without panicking the markets.”

      Which you do by shorting the market. As Sifferkoll noted the banks (of which Blackrock is part) and big oil were building a short position in oil, this raises and stabilizes the price while you buy, causing a glut; that allowed Big Oil to quietly exit the oil field asset market, as I noted with proof on numerous occasions.

      The Glut fools investors and asset buyers; who do not do their due diligence, as Blackrock clearly have; into thinking all is fine in the market and it is, until the short sellers pull the carpet out from under them.

      Blackrock did not know about the event until the Lugano report was made public in October BUT! the other big players stopped rolling over their shorts in June/July which is when the first drafts of the Lugano report started doing the rounds in the scientific community, from where it quickly reached the eyes and ears of Shell at least and they speeded up asset sales then, including taking a bigger loss, than they wanted to, to get rid of the assets. Others saw what Shell were doing and knowing they had better market intelligence and also quietly joined the rush to, pull the rug out in the oil futures market, and the plunge in oil prices began.

      Now we are in another short oil futures market phase, again as Sifferkoll noted, from the simple due diligence check of looking at the government produced commitment of traders report, and the price has once again stabilized and once again the glut is growing. A growing surplus of supply while big players are shorting the market tells you the price is too high! Once again probably around June, when the drop will be most precipitous due to normal low seasonal demand, they will pull the plug out from under the market, and the price will plunge down to about $30 per barrel. That will be the medium term price of oil, because that is the price of oil when you are not pricing in a future value dependent on peak oil.

      Then over about 5 to 20 years depending on the speed of LENR take up in the market, oil will decline to its plastics and feeder chemical market price of around $10 allthough LENR enablement of oil pumping and refining and alternative LENR enabled products will push this down to the $5 (all prices considered at the current value of money, eg alterations in the value of cash are not priced in).

      If as I suspect Saudi Arabia drops the price to around $10 fairly quickly to kill off all its competitors and solve its loss of high margins on lower volume by going low margin high volume, and is one of the first to start using LENR to pump, and convert its tankers transport oil with LENR, then the speed of LENR take up will be slowed as the relative cost of switching will be higher. Saudi Arabia would do this because they can and it ensures the maximum ROE in a managed decline market.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Mytakeis

        Copied, saved. many thanks

      • GreenWin

        Great analysis Ian! We’ll look for telltale signs come June.

  • US_Citizen71

    Tax revenues will likely increase not decrease. In the US fuel taxes are a flat amount per unit of volume. Taxing this way is less prone to swings in total amount collected because only use changes the amount collected. As the price of fuel drops the amount used will likely go up not down which will increase the amount of taxes collected. I am not an expert on how the world taxes it’s fuel but I would assume this model is the rule not the exception because it provides a more stable projection for tax collection than a percentage of the sales prices would.

  • GreenWin

    Swedish Academy HAS invested in (financed) some part of the Lugano Report. That investment has been made public by the authors of the Report. You cannot have it both ways Albert. The skeptical mantra has been, “Without peer reviewed publication, LENR is still a fringe fantasy.”
    Now we HAVE a peer reviewed journal (Indian Academies of Science – “Current Science” Special Section on LENR) which acknowledges the anomalous heat effect in some 35 separate papers. No ones used the word “endorsement” but you Albert.

    • there is peer reviewed article since long. hundreds.
      what skeptic says is that any journal that publish is bad peer review.

      they already starts to emit some racist remarks on that indian journal.

      of course, they are not like nature who accept experiments where they recalibrate or bend curves, to make any positive slope disappear… and refuse to correct it. they are high impact, so when they validate fraud, it a reference opinion.

      even JJAp is not enough for them.

  • Omega Z

    Yes because solar panels continue to drop in price. Smoke & Mirrors.

    Two of the largest solar panel manufacturers in the world have filed bankruptcy in the last year or so. Both state supported & subsidized using $2 an hour laborers. Both resulting in vast warehouses of panels being liquidated below the subsidized cost.

    Many others around the world have faced the same situation & closed their doors. More inventory liquidations below cost.
    Low wage, State subsidized, Below cost liquidations is how you get falling panel prices. At some point, this will all have to end & you’ll find that those cheap panels are not so cheap.

    One can follow on & find such deals as a Chinese part state owned company is part of a $3 Billion deal to build a solar farm in the U.S.. They receive a 1/3rd rebate subsidy on completion. You also learn that they get paid for electrical production even if it is not fed to the grid when not needed. At a higher then Fossil energy price.
    This is a hidden subsidy. The consumer pays higher Kilowatt prices on all energy used to subsidize this so called cheap energy. If it were cheap, it wouldn’t need subsidized..

    In the region I live in, We’ve been told Electricity is going to rise by at least 50% in the next few years. That’s because about 2% or so of our electricity will come from green technology replacing the coal plants. So using 98% Fossil energy plus 2% green energy equates to a 50% increase on the entire 100%. Yeah, that’s cheap.

    One day MSM reports, Raw materials for panels have doubled. Another day Laborers are protesting for higher wages. Another day Manufactures are going bankrupt. Another day, Good news, panel prices are dropping.

    I also recently read that battery storage is figured at about 14.5 cents per kilowatt(Excluding the source). That’s about 250% above my current Kilowatt costs. I know this necause my bill itemizes everything.

    I’m not a PhD in mathematics, But I know the smell of Rotten.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      that’s some inventive prose i’ll give you that. i thought that kind of rhetoric would have been shamed into darker corners of the internet by now, but i guess i was wrong.

      i look forward to hearing you explain how come GWs of solar are being installed around the world INSTEAD of new fossil fuel plants.

      doesn’t anybody realize the “reality ” of solar’s bad economics but you?. you couldn’t be just another solar basher with vested interests in the status quo could you?

      either hundreds of utilities and business are all wrong about solar’s economics or you are. the odds of you being right and them being wrong are pretty low imo.

      time will tell i suppose.

      • Omega Z

        Consumer Vs Utility.
        If I’m a Utility who gets 1/3rd of his investment back from the Government in subsidies as soon as completed.
        If I’m guaranteed a price point that grantees a profit per kilowatt.
        If I’m guaranteed payment for all potential energy produced regardless if I’m allowed to send it to the Grid. When it’s not needed.
        Sounds like a great deal for the Utility.
        But all this ends up at the consumers expense.

        Fossil fuel supplied Electricity
        Coal costs Down.
        Natural Gas Down.
        Cost per Kilowatt hour going up about 50% over a couple years.
        Cost per Kilowatt hour to double over 10 years.
        Cheap Green energy not so cheap.
        Actually, I think the letter we received may have said the “Utility billing” would increase that much & as the kilowatt cost is only half of the fees, The kilowatt cost could be more then doubled in the time frame.

        As to power plants being built. At present there are over 1000 of them on the books to be built. This is near a 10 year backlog. This list is made up of some Nuclear plants, but the bulk of them are N-gas & coal. Many more are needed but not listed due to the backlog. There to be added latter.

        Under the U.N. Cap & trade scheme, 3rd world countries can build coal powered plants. Only because people were concerned of appearances, A caveat was added that they have to be of modern design with particulate scrubbers installed. Nothing requires CO2 sequestering.

        That said. I agree there are exceptions. In Hawaii where all fuels are shipped in & they already pay about 40 cents per kilowatt, Both wind & solar would be cheaper. They are already experiencing issues & people are being refused the ability to feed back to the grid. If storage is added, the consumers will be charged for this access. But it still may be cheaper.

        There are other places around the world were the cost of building conventional plants & stringing a grid isn’t cost effective due to population density.

        • EEStorFanFibb

          Ascribing the reasons electricity costs are rising (if they are) to renewable power being MORE costly is beyond ridiculous. There are numerous reasons why power rates might be rising but it’s mostly due to the fact that existing power distribution models are either broken or transitioning as utilities enter a “death spiral”.


          Utilities are in a death spiral because of renewables, particularly solar, are so successful at devastating the peak demand profits of the utilities and saving solar owners a lot of money. You can expect utility defections to increase dramatically as solar power costs continue to drop. The fewer remaining customers have to incur more costs for the utility to stay alive… spurring yet more defections.

          As far as the cost of coal goes. Coal is by far the most subsidized power industry in the world – by far. Fortunately for coal producers, the true costs of coal have been hidden and born by the commons. In economic jargon the costs are externalized. If you were to internalize these costs, coal is nowhere near as cheap as UNsubsidized solar and wind. That’s just an undeniable fact.

          Here is just one example: Health care costs directly related to coal emissions alone amount to 500+ Billion dollars are year in the USA.

          “2011 Harvard report: external costs of coal up to $500 billion annually:

          A Feb. 2011 report, “Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: the Life Cycle Consequences of Coal,” led by associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School Dr. Paul Epstein, found that accounting for the full costs of coal would DOUBLE OR TRIPLE ITS PRICE. [my emphasis]

          The study, which was released in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, tallied the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion – and estimated those costs, which are borne by the public at large, to be between $175 billion and $500 billion dollars annually.[14]”

          Of course there are many other externalized costs, not the least of which is the costs to the natural capital of the watersheds, streams and rivers that are ruined by mountain top removal coal mining.

          Nevermind the fact that USA coal companies MUST routinely violate numerous US laws as a matter of course in order to make a profit.

          The only thing that has been protecting these scoundrels from prosecution is bought and paid for politicians. But even now that is changing.

          Coal is getting harder and harder for political puppets to defend. Even wall street has turned against it. In Jan 2013 Goldmann Sachs produced this:

          The window for thermal coal
          investment is closing

          Also see: ‘Coal Is A Dead Man Walking’: A Look Back At 2014

          and: Even Coal Baron Robert Murray Knows the Future of Coal is Dead

          Cheap Coal is Really, Really Dead

          Getting back to coal subsidies…. solar subsidies exist but aren’t huge and they can be tapered back over time and the solar industry will still thrive. Forgetting about all the external costs to the commons, Coal can’t survive without direct subsidies from the taxpayer.

          “In 2010, direct federal subsidies to the renewable energy industry totaled $14.6 billion, up from $5.1 billion in 2007. Solar installers received $1.1 billion of those 2010 subsidies, according to the EIA.

          To give these numbers some perspective, the coal industry has been receiving subsidies since 1932, and in 2007 the industry benefited from about $4 billion in direct government assistance. In 2010 this number shrank to just $1.4 billion. However, estimates on current coal subsidies vary widely, depending on how one accounts for indirect benefits like railroad subsidies that cut transportation costs. The Environmental Law Institute puts total coal subsidies from 2002 through 2010 at $25.4 billion. The price of generating electricity using coal has steadily risen since the 1970s and the cost of coal (including taxes) per million Btu increased 90 percent in the 10 years since 2002, hitting $2.38/million Btu in 2012.

          Meanwhile in the renewable energy world, the cost of solar energy has dropped 50 percent since 2008, driven in part by falling solar panel prices as demand grows and the technology gets more efficient. While solar remains an expensive option for many areas, overall the industry is nearing cost competitiveness with stalwarts like coal, EVEN WITHOUT FEDERAL SUBSIDIES.” [my emphasis]


          Still only a fool would look at today’s cost of solar and call it a day. What about in a decade or longer from now? Keep in mind that the grid is reimagined and continually replaced every 4 decades or so anyway…


          “solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states — in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.

          Even if the tax credit drops to 10 percent, solar will soon reach price parity with conventional electricity in well over half the nation: 36 states. Gone are the days when solar panels were an exotic plaything of Earth-loving rich people. Solar is becoming mainstream, and prices will continue to drop as the technology improves and financing becomes more affordable, according to the report.”

          “Solar will be the world’s biggest single source of electricity by 2050, according to a recent estimate by the International Energy Agency.”

          The bottom line is Solar (like Wind) is cheap and getting cheaper. If you take into account all the external costs and direct subsidies solar and wind are far cheaper than coal TODAY. Nobody who honestly looks at the numbers disputes this.

          And in the future, the gap will be ridiculously large. I don’t even think LENR could stop solar at this point. LENR looks like it might be good for heat but won’t be creating cheap electricity at scale for at least 2 decade. By then solar will be king.

          Finally, you contend that there are hidden costs to solar and wind and all these articles are wrong. Good luck with that position. As a lone voice on obscure blog, (sorry Frank) you’re going to need it in the face of this kind of media storm.


          Solar & Wind Will Prove Cheapest Form Of Electricity In The Future

          Is Solar the Next Shale

          Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here’s Why.

          Five Reasons Solar Will Power the Future

          Solar energy on the rise

          Solar projects gathering momentum, says CEO [in Qatar]

          Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn’t compete

          Solar Power & Wind Power Now Cheaper Than Coal Power In US

          The cost of wind and solar power keeps dropping all over the world