Rossi Opines on Solar

When asked about how the E-Cat stands up against other power sources, he usually says something along the lines of “all energy sources must be integrated”, and doesn’t get into a comparison between his technology and other energy sources. Today, he has made something of an exception to the rule, in responding to a JONP reader’s comment who suggested that in a few years all the US energy needs could be met by solar power.

Rossi responded:

Answer: you must make a distinction between power and energy. A solar power plant depends on the solar energy it actually receives to convert, as well as wind mills ( wind is anyway produced by solar energy, so indirectly also wind mills are solar plants). You can have a solar plant with a power of 1 MW, but actually it can produce at most 100 kWh/h of energy as an average, due to the fact that the solar energy that it is able to convert is the 10% of the solar energy it would need to produce energy at full power. This reduces to 3% the theoretical percentage of energy that solar plant are able to really produce respect the energy needs of the Country. To this you must add another factor, which is the cost of the solar energy, that is much higher than the cost of the energy produced by the classic sources. This high cost is paid by the taxpayer. Therefore the real situation of solar is not as much shining as it appears to be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I am not sure about his assertion that the high cost of solar energy is paid by the taxpayer, but certainly there are many subsidies available in the US and elsewhere that provide incentives for solar use.

I suppose that Rossi could add here that a 1 MW E-Cat plant can provide 1 MW of power if there is no downtime, thus delivering a much higher percentage of energy if it was converted into electricity (Rossi is making an assumption above that Solar is 30 per cent efficient. If E-Cat plants use the Carnot Cycle to create electricity, 30 percent efficiency is comparable to solar — plus the opportunity for co- or tri-generation to make use of heat.

Then you have to compare the cost of a solar plant to an E-Cat plant, an we don’t know what that will be yet. As for government subsidies — I wonder if there will be any for the E-Cat in the future. Following the same logic for subsidizing solar and wind, the E-Cat could be seen as a technology worth incentivizing if it drops the price of energy and produces no emissions. There may well be political debates on this issue if and when E-Cats hit the market.

  • pg

    ecat does not need subsidies, it just needs to work.

    • Abigaille

      Which, as for now, no one can prove that.

      • Omega Z

        I don’t think the term work is at issue. The verdict of Can it be harnessed to be of benefit is still out. Given a little time, I could make a list of things that work, but are of no real use or benefit…

    • LookMoo

      With eCat in full swing solar energy will be a hobby.

  • Twobob

    Incentivizing? Whots yer name Shakespeare? LOL!
    The E-cat ? Hot-Cat any old LENR Cat.
    When they come on line solar and wind will become oddities
    At present solar and wind are just political cat balls.
    They never could supply the energy needs of ANY nation.
    .

  • mcloki

    When e-Cat is proven to work in a larger scale. The US Congress will subsidize the whole scale refurbishment of coal fired and natural gas plants. Or to be specific. Utility lobbyists will, make sure that the government subsidizes the conversion effort. Wrap it up in a green, lower carbon emissions wrapper and utilities can keep their distributed model alive. And undercut solar just in time to reap the electric car bonanza.

  • No subsidies for E-Cats or any form of LENR; none for oil, coal, gas, fission, wind, solar, or wave. No subsidies for elephants trained to produce energy in giant rotating hamster wheel cages either. Let consumers choose which form of energy is the best buy. Subsidies result in chronic corporate welfare scams and the corporate welfare lobbies always dig their dirty hooks into politicians for more and more money. The USA and Britain are running big budget deficits, and we should not borrow money to give away without a life or death good reason. The marketplace is a giant brain, and each consumer is a cell in that brain. That giant brain on average is much smarter than our politicians who brought us such intelligent decisions as torture, mass spying, enormous budget deficits, multiple useless wars, etc. Don’t trust these idiots with anything as important as energy policy. We do not know which will be the cheapest energy source. Is it the E-Cat, a Defkalion device, a Solar Hydrogen Trends Device, a Toyota designed reactor, or a simplified hot-fusion reactor? The energy scene changes ever day, and we should invest small amounts of money in research, but never legislate subsidies and mandates. That path has caused bigger budget deficits, more unemployment, higher food and energy prices, and an unfair marketplace. Freedom means *free choice*, and free choice should be what we actually give people, not just a hollow slogan that we use as a pretext for one useless war after another.

    • I’d be down for ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSIDIES for any power generation industry.

      Now, let’s argue for the next 10 year over what constitutes a subsidy.

      🙂

      • Omega Z

        Your Right. People can argue on end about what is or isn’t a subsidy. But some are a no brainer.

        If the Government pays for 1/3rd of a project & defers all income from taxes, guarantees above market price per Kwh whether used or not, it’s safe to say it’s subsidized.

        That’s a far cry from so called Oil subsidies. They merely get to deduct certain expenses that are not considered profit. Some of these are actually to offset a tax side effect that could cause them to be taxed twice on some costs. Taxed now. Taxed again later.

        The U.S. Government auctions of lease rights for resources on federal land. Unknown to the general public- The Government gets at least 16% of every dollar of gross oil sales. By that I mean they get there 16% even if the oil is sold for less then it cost to get it out of the ground.

        If this federal space is within a state or close to it off shore, the state gets a portion of that & may add a separation tax. Not complaining. I just think the public should be aware. There is also a 4 million$ dismantling tax on oil platforms offshore in the Gulf. These fees are above & beyond the tax at the pump.

        One person actually went to the bother of checking the so called oil subsidies. He found a total of 2 billion$ available. Most or all left untouched & rolled over to the next year. As the Exxon CEO said. Remove it from the funding bill. They don’t use it anyway. It costs more to qualify then it gives. It only benefits small independents who usually are already in financial trouble & don’t qualify.

        A More Important point here is. Another Entity with a vested interest of not promoting LENR. The Federal & State Governments stand to lose in excess of 100 Billion$ a year in Oil Revenue. They wont get on board until they can’t avoid it.

        • “If the Government pays for 1/3rd of a project & defers all income from taxes, guarantees above market price per Kwh whether used or not, it’s safe to say it’s subsidized.”

          If you’re talking about the ITC in the USA please keep in mind that the fossil fuel industries have received tax breaks adding up to 100s of billions of dollars over a century. The ITC is going to expire in 2016. Not exactly a fair comparison. One subsidy is short and temporary one is long term and permanent. Also, do you have examples where a FIT and ITC were both employed at the same time, on the same project?

          Background:

          Minimum Feed-in Tariff: The generator is guaranteed a minimum tariff per kWh for a specified period.

          Production Tax Credit: Mostly in the U.S. , the generator receives a tax credit. It can therefore only be used by investors with sufficient tax capacity.

          Quota System: awards the generator with certificates that can be sold into a market. No price guarantee. An alternative to this is an exemption from a charge levied on electricity if generated from renewable sources. E.g. climate change levy in the UK”

          http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/renewable/context/incentives.php

          Regarding the ITC…. even though it has been around only a short time it…

          “ …has helped to balance the scales and provide some measure of tax fairness,” Resch continued. “Today, solar employs nearly 175,000 Americans – with 150,000 of those jobs created since the ITC was implemented – and pumps nearly $20 billion a year into the U.S. economy. We’re also providing enough clean electricity to power more than 4 million homes nationwide – and that number is expected to double in the next two years. By any measurement, the solar ITC is paying big dividends for America.”

          http://www.seia.org/news/seia-new-report-offers-distorted-view-solar-itc

    • Alain Samoun

      “No subsidies” Yeah… Koch brothers and oil&Co will make sure of that. They have enough money to pay politicians to continue polluting. Besides they got plenty of federal money themselves before any competition.

      • OK. Boycott all products made with the help of oil and natural gas. You will be naked, homeless, and quickly starve to death. If you are not prepared to quickly die for your cause, then you have no ethical right to condemn that which keeps you alive. You cannot blame all the ills of the world on the Koch brothers. Nature is not in danger; the human race is in danger. Nature is so resilient it will survive no matter what we do. The human race can be easily and quickly wiped out by volcanic activity (our biggest threat), asteroid impacts, disease, war, etc. Atmospheric scientist James Lovelock recently called the green movement “appalling”, not because radical greens care about the environment as he does, but because they don’t care what their wild and irresponsible ideas do to the human race. If you hate oil and natural gas, then you hate the human food supply, because oil and natural gas are essential for planting, fertilizing, growing, harvesting, transporting and storing food. If you mean what you say, then stop eating immediately.

        • Alain Samoun

          You are right I have “the wild and irresponsible idea” to think that it is time to get ride of all fossils,including the Koch brothers and their apologues, by clean and renewable energies and LENR. For that it would be fair to have the support and subsidies from governments.

          • First, we need a viable replacement for fossil fuels with very high energy density and 24-7-365 reliability. You cannot buy a LENR reactor today in any store. Wind and solar don’t work and can never replace fossil fuels. Biofuels are worse for the environment than oil and skyrocket food costs. Fossil fuels created modern civilization. Your hatred for that which created you and everything you use and consume every day is not reasonable. You need to calm down, be patient, and support positive endeavors, such as LENR research. Mandating and subsidizing scams that don’t work and can never work, such as wind, solar, biofuels, etc, is counterproductive. Such hoaxes contributed to the collapse of the economies of Greece and Spain. Today, solar energy produces less than .3% of the USA’s electricity supply; not 3%, but less than .3%.

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/solar-provides-02-electric-supply-002-obama

            In Germany solar panels have a Capacity Factor of under 10%. You cannot produce any solar energy at night. We need rational people to find a replacement for fossil fuels. Irrationality does not help any of us.

          • Alain Samoun

            Christopher: Don’t you think that your hate against renewable energies especially against solar energy and your praise of fossil fuels are a bit odd and irrational on this blog?
            To calm you down ;-):
            – You probably do not believe on anthropomorphic climate change I guess?
            – Did you see how Colbert rips the brothers Koch:

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/28/1087135/-PRICELESS-Colbert-Rips-David-Koch-to-His-Face-at-TIME-Magazine-Gala

          • The federal government’s own National Research Council found that solar and wind projects reduce CO2 emissions to such a tiny, inconsequential amount that they are not worth subsidizing. The found that biofuel farming increases greenhouse gas emissions more than using ordinary gasoline. Many independent studies have found the same thing. The environmental damage caused by wind farms is very substantial. So what are we doing? I support potent government projects that have real benefit. I oppose worthless, window dressing government projects that just throw money down a storm drain.

            SEE:

            http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18299&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies

          • WOW! You know that actual solar and wind projects are not the same thing as the us tax subsidies for renewables, right??!!

            I mean, just because the latter doesn’t have an effect on emissions reduction doesn’t mean the former doesn’t.

            In fact economic growth has begun decoupling (and will continue to decouple) from CO2 emissions. The IEA said so.

            “Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014 – Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years” http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

            “The IEA attributes the halt in emissions growth to changing patterns of
            energy consumption in China and OECD countries. In China, 2014 saw
            greater generation of electricity from renewable sources, such as
            hydropower, solar and wind, and less burning of coal. In OECD economies,
            recent efforts to promote more sustainable growth – including greater
            energy efficiency and more renewable energy – are producing the desired
            effect of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions.”

            And you act like solar and wind is a government enterprise or something.

            Surprise! The solar and wind industries are made up of for-profit, private companies who are doing very well thank you very much. They sell projects because the projects make great financial sense to their customers.

            Just ask Walmart, a huge solar installations customer.

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/10/21/walmart_green_energy_it_can_produce_more_solar_power_than_35_states.html

            “Walmart’s efforts are also only just beginning—it has pledged to double its solar installations by 2020 and says that, long term, it wants to get all of its electricity from renewables, up from about a quarter of its worldwide consumption today.”

          • Nonsense. Solar and wind depend on government mandates and subsidies. Those industries will die off without them. You can mandate and subsidize prostitution and increase the number of people having dangerous sex, but is that a worthwhile goal? The renewable energy fad has become a religion. I cannot argue with a religious belief. Humans continue to increase atmospheric greenhouse levels, and biofuel production increased it more than anything. Nothing good has come from wind, solar, and biofuel projects. We would all be far better off without them and so would the environment. LENR will kill off the renewable energy fad, and that is one of many reasons I support LENR research. I do not support mandates and subsidies for LENR. Valuable products sell themselves without bribes and coercion.

          • you wrote: “Solar and wind depend on government mandates and subsidies. Those industries will die off without them”

            that is absurd. incentives and subsidies are already being scaled back in a lot of jursidictions because they arent needed anymore. yet solar and wind is still growing by leaps and bounds.

            tremendous good is coming from the displacement of fossil fuels. in areas of health (cleaner air), water conservation (coal plants consume enormous amounts of water), carbon emissions, job creation (solar and wind job growth has been stellar) just to name a few positives.

            and libertarians love controlling their energy future with solar.

          • This is the YouTube video I made about wind power –

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQMBdcbMTc

            The title is simply *Windmills Kill Birds*. I am rooting for the birds and against the renewable energy religion.

          • Alain Samoun

            Nice youtube, but don’t you think that you can make a lot more scary movie with oil,coal or shale gas ? This of course if you were not an anti-renewable energy fanatic… 😉

          • Oil and natural gas are whats keeping you alive. Any large scale industry will have effects on the environment. If you don’t like oil and natural gas, then stop eating, stop driving a car, stop wearing clothing, stop living indoors. If you are not willing to do that, then your complaints are hollow. Windmills do nothing to reduce our consumption of oil. They only reduce our consumption of relatively clean burning natural gas to a very tiny, insignificant amount, while dramatically increasing the cost of electricity. With half the American population living on the edge of survival, it is decadent for environmentalists to not care about the high economic costs of inefficient wind and solar projects. Even Al Gore now does not like wind power any more. T. Boone Pickens wishes he never heard of it. The green movement is created by wealthy people who don’t care about high prices. The world’s poor want affordable food and energy because they are struggling to survive. Liberals should oppose the renewable energy fad because it hurts the poor the most while creating no real-world environmental benefits. That is why famous environmental scientist James Lovelock recently called the green movement “appalling.” It has become anti-human being.

          • Doug Cutler

            Since coal fired power plants kill far more birds per kWh than do wind turbines I’m sure you are now eager to replace coal with wind or solar as soon as possible while we wait for LENR:

            http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

          • I support ending all energy subsidies and mandates across the board. Coal fired power plants kill thousands of human beings each year due to particulate pollution, not because of CO2 pollution. We can enforce laws on particulate emissions, but I support LENR as a way to kill off the coal industry gradually without firing a shot directly at coal miners, their families, and all the poor people in the world who depend on reasonably cost electricity. Natural gas is cheaper than coal in the USA, and far cleaner. We don’t need to ban solar and wind; we only need to make consumers pay the full real-world cost of their inherent inefficiency. Few consumers will choose wind or solar when they can buy clean burning natural gas at a fraction of the cost. Take the gun away from the heads of consumers and let consumers decide on their own without mandates. I support polite, non-thug, non economically destructive methods to gradually switch from fossil fuels to LENR. Poverty kills people as surely as cancer, and we want people to be financially secure as we switch from burning fossil fuels to LENR.

          • Omega Z

            (coal plants consume enormous amounts of water)

            No. The don’t consume water. Due to the large size of power plants today, they need large quantities of water for cooling. Smaller scale plants that would be practical with LENR due to logistics differences wouldn’t require this. They could economically use air cooling towers instead.

            According to NASA, all the water that ever was is still present today less that that was purged in space in the early days. In fact, water brought to earth by meteorites means every year, the amount of water on earth is increasing tho tiny in comparison to what is already here.

            All the water used in steam turbines themselves is re-condensed & recycled continuously. It is demineralized/distilled water(A Must) The small percentage of cooling water that is dissipated as vapor will return as rain. It is not consumed. And as pointed out above. With smaller power plants, air cooling towers suffice.

            Things that become necessary for present power plants. Fuel logistics(pipelines/rails). Cause for large centralized power plants which can’t be economically air cooled require large bodies of water for cooling/condensing. All negated by small plants that fuel can be transported in a pickem up truck or van once per year or 2.

          • Beyond the sheer enormous AMOUNT of water that coals plants use (that could be better used elsewhere growing food) coal plant operators intentionally contaminate the water before it re-enters the commons.

            And environmental damage due to thermal pollution is also a concern.

            see: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

          • Omega Z

            “the halt in emissions growth” is attributable to an economic slump.
            Also China didn’t reduce consumption of coal. They have merely slowed down it’s use growth building(Or refurbishing) more efficient coal plants.

            The U.S. has reduced coal consumption by converting to natural gas. About 10% of the older coal plants will be shut down as there at end of life cycle & deemed not economical to convert to natural gas. This is actually by Government intent to artificially force up prices making alternate energy more competitive. Not that it truly is. In fact, coal energy costs have declined to <4 cents a kilowatt wholesale. Agenda driven, not facts. What happens when the new tech coal plants with near zero CO2 emissions are built.

          • Alain Samoun

            http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?
            RecordID=18299&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies
            This is what I read in this report:

            “The models indicate that the provisions subsidizing renewable electricity reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while those for ethanol and other biofuels may have slightly increased greenhouse gas emissions.”

            I agree with it: Solar and wind make electricity and reduce greenhouse gas,but subsidies to agro business for ethanol and biofuels have the exact opposite effect.

            Did you read this report Christopher?

          • The study said that the reduction is so tiny it makes no difference to our climate. What about all the birds and bats killed by windmills? Other studies found that windmills actually increase global warming due to land use change. No one knows which studies are most accurate, but there are no credible studies that show wind power could possibly have any significant positive effect on our climate. And, is our climate really being affected by greenhouse gas emissions in any case? That theory is not proven by the historical record in any way, shape, or form. It is still just an unproven theory misrepresented as fact. The case that we humans are increasing Earth surface temperatures through land use change is 100% proven, and windmills make that situation worse. No religion on Earth is based on reason, logic, and facts. They are all irrational. That is why the renewable energy fad is rightly called a religion. There is nothing logical, reasonable, or honest about it. Hydroelectric power is great and geothermal power is at least marginally acceptable. Wind and solar are off the charts failures and will never work. We need continuous energy sources that we can turn on and off at will, that have high energy density, and are reliable. Wind and solar by nature cannot meet those minimum requirements.

          • Omega Z

            Alain
            Ethanol from corn is actually a positive, albeit marginal. This has much to do with the process used. It could be much better & in reality, it should not effect food costs. This is just slight of hand cost shifting by those involved. This is the only fuel process I could support(More so if done differently) But subsidies are past their prime in this endeavor.

            Without the subsidies, they would be required to rethink how they do Ethanol of fail. When I speak of doing it differently, I’m thinking of using waste heat from power plants. It would then be a major positive rather then marginal.

            Years before Corporate America got involved, A farmer developed a solar still that produced 4 gallons per bushel per day. He estimated his costs at 25 cents a gallon & used the dried feed stock to feed his animals at no net loss of weight gain per bushel.

            Obviously, This was a summer operation, but waste heat from power plants would make it year round much faster & more efficiently. The Farmer ran his entire farm off of it. All his farm machines, tractors, car, truck & home heating. He found that 95% Ethanol & 5% water was the best mix. Better then gasoline, diesel, or gasohol for mileage by about 20% And the engines needed less maintenance.

            Straight alcohol was Not efficient. About a 20% decline in mileage. On the upside. He didn’t have a CEO that cost millions in compensation. I don’t know if today’s vehicles would handle his mix.

          • you are right .39% of 2014 power generated in the the USA was from solar PV.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States#Solar_photovoltaic_power

            But look at those growth rates!!!! It’s expanding at an exponential rate.

            And if solar PV only has that tiny market share AND IS ALREADY AS CHEAP AS (and getting significantly cheaper by the year) than fossil fuel and nuclear generation… don’t you think it’s just a matter of time before it dominates completely??

            Only a tiny percentage of the of the “land” needs to be covered with panels for solar to provide ubiquitous power. Building rooftops should be enough. solar installations will be part of building codes soon.

            Plus, intermittency is not the deal breaker you make it out to be.

            EVs with vehicle to grid systems, self-sustained buildings and microgrids, demand response via internet of things, AND renewables are all coming together synergistically to create great change and disruption.

            The problem is you are looking at renewables where they are today and not where they are going to be in 10 years. that’s your biggest mistake.

  • Here is some articles of interest on this topic.

    Solar report stunner: Unsubsidized ‘Grid Parity Has Been Reached In India’, Italy–With More Countries Coming in 2014 http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-03-07/solar-report-stunner-unsubsidized-grid-parity-has-been-reached-in-india-italy-with-more-countries-coming-in-2014

    Shell says solar to be #1 source of energy (but not yet) http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/shell-says-solar-to-be-1-source-of-energy-but-not-yet-94501?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=shell-says-solar-to-be-1-source-of-energy-but-not-yet-94501

    Unsubsidized Solar Revolution Starting, UBS Reports http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/23/unsubsidized-solar-revolution-starting-ubs-reports/

    Report: Solar Could Meet All The World’s Electricity Needs In 2050 Using Under One Percent Of World’s Land http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/17/1460431/solar-world-land/

    People generally have a problem with exponential growth.

    Solar is somewhat akin to digital cameras and cell phones in terms of growth… just faster.

  • Carl Wilson

    LENR is baseload power, via swapable E-cats at a minimum. Likely to be developed into peaking power also. Solar & wind are intermittent – the intermittency can be ameliorated but at a cost.

    • Omega Z

      LENR power could directly replace current power plants with the primary difference being fuel costs & fuel transport(Rail/Pipelines) no longer needed. This also allows for local distribution(Power plants at cities edge) rather then the highly centralized systems of today. Being much smaller in scale, they also don’t need vast amounts of cooling water & the waste heat being local can be utilized by local industry.

  • mcloki

    The e-Cat or solar don’t have to be cheaper than the lowest electricity generation, they have to be lower than the highest cost electricity generation. Once they establish that they can replace those high cost electricity sources they can work on lowering the cost and replacing the cheaper alternatives, in turn.

    • Carl Wilson

      Highest cost is peaking. Not likely this will be first use of LENR.

      • Rene

        Indeed, and this is where solar shines. Peaking plants tend to run when the sun is up. It’s best to think of PV power generation as peaking power. The e-cat advantage is that it can theoretically run 24/7 and presumably do it inexpensively. Solar generates power 5-10 hours a day if placed in ideal spots. Because of that periodicity, next to solar plants need to be some form of power storage: batteries, molten salts, VRB, whatever, and adds to the cost.
        I am presently on off-grid PV, happy I did it and looking forward to the next gen fire.

      • mcloki

        On a cost basis it becomes the easiest to justify.

  • mcloki

    The e-Cat or solar don’t have to be cheaper than the lowest electricity generation, they have to be lower than the highest cost electricity generation. Once they establish that they can replace those high cost electricity sources they can work on lowering the cost and replacing the cheaper alternatives, in turn.

    • Carl Wilson

      Highest cost is peaking. Not likely this will be first use of LENR.

      • Rene

        Indeed, and this is where solar shines. Peaking plants tend to run when the sun is up. It’s best to think of PV power generation as peaking power. The e-cat advantage is that it can theoretically run 24/7 and presumably do it inexpensively. Solar generates power 5-10 hours a day if placed in ideal spots. Because of that periodicity, next to solar plants need to be some form of power storage: batteries, molten salts, VRB, whatever, and adds to the cost.
        I am presently on off-grid PV, happy I did it and looking forward to the next gen fire.

        • wind is actually a good compliment to solar. wind often picks up in the evening.

      • mcloki

        On a cost basis it becomes the easiest to justify.

  • Ged

    Not completely, by any means at all–especially not wind. This is a handy little guide if just a primer http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_energy_source

    More on how unreliable wind is http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/27/government-is-whistling-in-the-wind-on-practical-case-for-wind-power/

    Solar is also an “unreliable” class of power, and natual gas is the usual backup. http://www.npr.org/2012/03/12/148318905/renewable-energy-throws-power-grid-off-balance

    So sadly, at this time, your claim of “completely forcastable and therefore easy to deal with” is utterly and patently false.

  • Andrew

    I can relate to The tapayer comment. Where I live solar is subsidesed but anyone can do it. Build an array and sell the power to the utility. It lowers the utilities maintence overhead but increases the cost of power to average joe because they buy the electricity for 3 times the price they are selling it for. Slowly they are shortening that gap.

  • GreenWin

    Solar/PV enthusiasm is a necessary transition to energy independence. Human beings were energy independent until a mere century ago. Centralized electric production is the product of outdated technology. There is no longer a need to generate and transmit energy over distance. We can make our own energy when and where it is needed. Just like we can make our own ice.

    The fossil/fission monopoly has exploited the public for a century. But the public are waking to alternatives. When they learn those alternatives have been intentionally withheld — they’ll be angry. They’ll demand justice. Is that wrong?

    • Josh

      A little ironic that you used ice, which most people could not produce on their own until centralized energy was generated and transmitted, as your example of independence.

      I don’t see quite the fossil/fission monopoly that you do – certainly some, but people are free (actually paid in tax rebates) to use alternatives. Rossi/IH are the only people claiming to have anything that is being withheld at this point.

      Sure, I suppose the government could be hiding something, and if that was the case, I’d be mad. But, I’m more of a believer in government’s incompetence than I am their ability to create something of great value and keep it a secret. But, I’ve been wrong before.

      • Omega Z

        I agree. Fossil energy is just a natural progression of society & we will progress to other energy processes. I would note that without the fossil energy phase, LENR could never have evolved today. It is a product made possible by the fossil energy era & the associated advancement of society.

      • GreenWin

        You’re partly correct re ice analogy. Adsorption cooling with natgas also requires infrastructure; the infrastructure prior to home refrigeration was the ice house and wagon delivery. It was replaced as will the outdated grid and much of the natgas delivery system.

        Government subsidies to nuke power plants (uninsurable without subsidy) and fossil fuel exploration benefit the fossil/fission monopoly nicely. And “government” (i.e. taxpayers) foot the multibillion $$ cost of “storing” radioactive waste. Until alternatives produce more than 1.0% energy on planet — I think it fair to call fossil/fission a monopoly.

        BTW, government funded the Caltech and MIT cold fusion studies which falsified their results. Hiding something? Incompetence? I say BOTH.

  • Rical

    Why subsidies for E-Cat ? When the people will understand the E-Cat advantages, anybody will want his own one for home and for car… anywhere on the earth. Then Industrial Heat will not can build enough devices and many smaller interprises will can rise. Many managers can understand this and this movement already began http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/CustomPage/?id=9

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, the term paid by taxpayer does not necessary mean that taxes are used to build the solar plant (but in most cases heavy subsidies do exist).

    The term taxpayer simply means someone working and paying taxes. This in no way limits the conversation and suggests that the solar system was paid for by the government.

    The simple fact is if ANYONE consumes that expensive power then YES they are paying for that power. This is the correct way of reasoning on Rossi part. So the taxpayer HAS to carry the burden of that INCREASED energy cost. The fact that you taxed the person to pay for the plant, or you increase the cost they pay for the energy amounts to the SAME THING!

    Really at the end of the day, such semantics DOES NOT matter – (in other words the point has ZERO to do if the government paid for the plant or not) – what matters is society is paying MORE for this resource.

    So the taxpayer pays for this resource – there is no hint or restricting the discussion nor even a suggesting that such plants are run by the government or not. However either way it amounts to the same thing and that is the taxpayer has to pay for this increased cost.

    The result is THUS a REDUCED standard of living.

    And that just means wide spread poverty.

    Solar cannot compete, and thus simply results in a lower standing of living and reduced job creating.

    The best example of wide spread poverty as a result of spending money on STUPID solar is Spain. Spain went on a HUGE green and solar spending spree. They spent billions and billions and billions on solar – as if they were going to show the rest of the world how do things! We are going green and let’s IGNORE the increased cost of doing so!

    And just like blowing all your money on booze, wine and women? Well then you did not repair your car, or house or spend money on things that actually create wealth and things that NEED attention.

    So blowing money on wine, women or solar plants amounts to the same thing! You become poor! The green cost is too high, and the result is a lower standard of living.

    In fact poverty spreads when you spend money so foolish!

    So now unemployment in Spain? Well after years of spending billions on these crazy green solar scams? systems?). Runs that OVER 50% for the youth. (Read that number an again: 56%). And their children have even LESS hope!

    You now have common 3 generations of a family living in small apartments suitable for a young single couple – not 3 generations of a family.

    And going to school does not help, but ONLY creates more debut load for the family since no jobs exist after you graduate!

    And no jobs exist because they spent billion on stupid solar plants that simply results in RAISING the cost of running your society. Thus the stupid solar system sucked more wealth out of the economy then such systems create..

    The result is a lower standard of living for those taxpayers.

    Remember, a policemen or even a teacher is not a taxpayer (they are paid by the tax system – they don’t contribute to the tax funds that the government uses for such payrolls).

    So it is important to realize that anyone receiving positive cash flow from the government are NOT paying into the tax system – they are not taxpayers, but in fact tax consumers).

    When the ratio of people working in an economy drops below the ability of the PRIVATE sector and those taxpayers who actually contribute to the government funds, then you get a case like Spain.

    So if the government flushes too money down the toilet on stupid solar projects that raises the cost of living then widespread poverty results like what we see in Spain. Even better example is that of Greece.

    And many parts of California are like Spain. Few people can now afford the electricity rates (they can peak at 80 cent Kw/h. That means to turn your air conditioning on for part of a hot day, it will cost you about $8 per hour – 10 hours = $80 dollars. So no one can now afford air conditioning! (you live like those in a 3rd world country).

    And with such astronomical electricity rates California then SO FEW can afford to own their home anymore. They have a HUGE homeless problem now in California.

    Worse is with LESS taxpayers, then tax rates have SOARED! In some places you find the taxes on a relative SMALL condo will cost you $11,000 PER year! No wonder such a massive homeless problem exists in California – no one can afford to live there!

    And yet, California is talking about mandating electric cars! With such high electricity rates, then you are paying FAR MORE then the cost of gasoline! The result will be even MORE poverty.

    So all Rossi is saying is that solar will make everyone poor, and it not cost competitive.

    However a society can adopt solar and pour money into such projects – the result is then you can live with 3 generations of your family in some dumpster.

    So adopting solar simply means everyone becomes very poor and large portions of such societies means many of their people will have to live in a dumpster.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

    • LilyLover

      Anti-Solar is anti-human.
      Your mathematics, economics and purpose of life are totally anti-moral.

      Anti-Solar is anti-human. Ponder upon it.

      • Omega Z

        Food production is extremely energy intensive.
        Quadruple the cost of energy & Quadruple the cost of food.
        Maybe the starving should have some input on this.
        The cost of food was a major contributor to the Arab spring. Shall we bring that to a world scale.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, the term paid by taxpayer does not necessary mean that taxes are used to build the solar plant (but in most cases heavy subsidies do exist).

    The term taxpayer simply means someone working and paying taxes. This in no way limits the conversation and suggests that the solar system was paid for by the government.

    The simple fact is if ANYONE consumes that expensive power then YES they are paying for that power. This is the correct way of reasoning on Rossi part. So the taxpayer HAS to carry the burden of that INCREASED energy cost. The fact that you taxed the person to pay for the plant, or you increase the cost they pay for the energy amounts to the SAME THING!

    Really at the end of the day, such semantics DOES NOT matter – (in other words the point has ZERO to do if the government paid for the plant or not) – what matters is society is paying MORE for this resource.

    So the taxpayer pays for this resource – there is no hint or restricting the discussion nor even a suggesting that such plants are run by the government or not. However either way it amounts to the same thing and that is the taxpayer has to pay for this increased cost.

    The result is THUS a REDUCED standard of living.

    And that just means wide spread poverty.

    Solar cannot compete, and thus simply results in a lower standing of living and reduced job creating.

    The best example of wide spread poverty as a result of spending money on STUPID solar is Spain. Spain went on a HUGE green and solar spending spree. They spent billions and billions and billions on solar – as if they were going to show the rest of the world how do things! We are going green and let’s IGNORE the increased cost of doing so!

    And just like blowing all your money on booze, wine and women? Well then you did not repair your car, or house or spend money on things that actually create wealth and things that NEED attention.

    So blowing money on wine, women or solar plants amounts to the same thing! You become poor! The green cost is too high, and the result is a lower standard of living.

    In fact poverty spreads when you spend money so foolish!

    So now unemployment in Spain? Well after years of spending billions on these crazy green solar scams? systems?). Runs that OVER 50% for the youth. (Read that number an again: 56%). And their children have even LESS hope!

    You now have common 3 generations of a family living in small apartments suitable for a young single couple – not 3 generations of a family.

    And going to school does not help, but ONLY creates more debut load for the family since no jobs exist after you graduate!

    And no jobs exist because they spent billion on stupid solar plants that simply results in RAISING the cost of running your society. Thus the stupid solar system sucked more wealth out of the economy then such systems create..

    The result is a lower standard of living for those taxpayers.

    Remember, a policemen or even a teacher is not a taxpayer (they are paid by the tax system – they don’t contribute to the tax funds that the government uses for such payrolls).

    So it is important to realize that anyone receiving positive cash flow from the government are NOT paying into the tax system – they are not taxpayers, but in fact tax consumers).

    When the ratio of people working in an economy drops below the ability of the PRIVATE sector and those taxpayers who actually contribute to the government funds, then you get a case like Spain.

    So if the government flushes too money down the toilet on stupid solar projects that raises the cost of living then widespread poverty results like what we see in Spain. Even better example is that of Greece.

    And many parts of California are like Spain. Few people can now afford the electricity rates (they can peak at 80 cent Kw/h. That means to turn your air conditioning on for part of a hot day, it will cost you about $8 per hour – 10 hours = $80 dollars. So no one can now afford air conditioning! (you live like those in a 3rd world country).

    And with such astronomical electricity rates California then SO FEW can afford to own their home anymore. They have a HUGE homeless problem now in California.

    Worse is with LESS taxpayers, then tax rates have SOARED! In some places you find the taxes on a relative SMALL condo will cost you $11,000 PER year! No wonder such a massive homeless problem exists in California – no one can afford to live there!

    And yet, California is talking about mandating electric cars! With such high electricity rates, then you are paying FAR MORE then the cost of gasoline! The result will be even MORE poverty.

    So all Rossi is saying is that solar will make everyone poor, and it not cost competitive.

    However a society can adopt solar and pour money into such projects – the result is then you can live with 3 generations of your family in some dumpster.

    So adopting solar simply means everyone becomes very poor and large portions of such societies means many of their people will have to live in a dumpster.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

    • LilyLover

      Anti-Solar is anti-human.
      Your mathematics, economics and purpose of life are totally anti-moral.

      Anti-Solar is anti-human. Ponder upon it.

      • Omega Z

        Food production is extremely energy intensive.
        Quadruple the cost of energy & Quadruple the cost of food.
        Maybe the starving should have some input on this.
        The cost of food was a major contributor to the Arab spring. Shall we bring that to a world scale.

        • OZ, you are not wrong about the following 2 points:

          1) food production is extremely energy intensive.

          There is no doubt about it. We need to conserve the finite resource that is oil for agriculture and stop using it in passenger transport where electrons and electric motors do a much better job.

          2) rising food costs was a major contributor to the Arab Spring.

          That is also very true… but you left out something crucial. Many droughts in 2010 were exacerbated by climate change and these droughts led to the rising food costs.

          as Scientific American reported:

          “CLIMATE CHANGE and Rising Food Prices Heightened Arab Spring”
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring/

          The lesson learned here is we better lower emissions quickly or climate induced droughts are going to lower many a crop yield in the decades to come.

          • Omega Z

            “Many droughts in 2010 were exacerbated by climate change”

            There is no compelling evidence of that. It is simple opinions.
            What CO2 has done is increased food production. There is both correlation & evidence of that. The drought that hit the Midwest was partly mitigated by the fact that plants need much less water with higher CO2 levels. This was not an unprecedented drought. Just a normal periodic drought. You can set your calender by it.

            CO2 is responsible for the greening around desert fringes without an increase in moisture. It is considered possible that these greening areas will increase the rainfall in these areas. Thus shrinking the deserts.

            Southern Cali is just entering it’s normal state. It is a desert that has been artificially greened for decades during an abnormal wet period. They were warned. They just didn’t want to hear it.

            I lived in a place like that for a while. Had a discussion with a Geological Engineer. He told of the arguments he had with the developers & city managers that the wet period was near it’s end. They didn’t care. They planned on moving on before then. It would be somebody else’s problem.

            This is how many water shortages tend to happen. A developer comes in to a place with a normal water supply capable of supplying a population of 3 million of which is already there. Land is cheap. 20 years latter, they have built 8 million new homes. Oh my. We have a water shortage. Oh, It must be climate change.

            Oh well. Just pay less attention to what TPTB say & more to what they do & approve.
            Boeing estimates 50K more aircraft in the next 30 years. That’s a lot of CO2. They will be more efficient, but that’s demand from the market. Fuel is the main expense after purchase.
            The UN approved & signed off on 800 more coal fired plants to be built in the next 10 years. They did add the caveat that they all need to have scrubbers installed(For appearances sake-Seriously they said that.). That has no effect on CO2. Just particulate release.

            If CO2 was really the boogeyman they say it is, Don’t you think they would claim some type of emanate domain & take over Rossi’s, Mills & others research and rush it forward. If their concern was real they would. Not going to happen. However, If they should do that. I will concede I was wrong.

          • now we are into climate change denier territory and Frank hates that.

            you can hand wave away all you want. I am not going to engage you in a pointless battle.

  • I recently purchased a photovoltaic powered guitar tuner, a TASCAM TC-1S for $5.99. It is a proper and reasonable use of photovoltaic technology. You can call it “solar powered,” but it will actually mainly be recharged via interior lighting.

    http://www.musiciansfriend.com/accessories/tascam-tc-1s-chromatic-tuner

    I also have a CASIO light powered hand-held calculator. No one subsidized my purchase of these two items, and no one mandated I buy them. They are correct uses of a technology that sells itself. Use the right tool for the right job. If you use the wrong tool for the wrong job, you can subsidize them and mandate them, but you still will not do the world any good.

    • Alain Samoun

      By the same token,if you buy a PV panel you will produce clean and renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      • To such a tiny degree that it could not possibly have any effect on our climate according to the federal government’s own National Research Council. The positive effects of the solar fad are immeasurably tiny. The negative effects are tremendous, such as higher costs for food and energy, more unemployment, and a bigger trade deficit because solar cells are now made in China almost exclusively. Solar is a victory of symbolism over substance. You cannot eat impotent symbolic gestures or pay your rent with good intentions. It’s all political hype, not a solution to anything.

        • Alain Samoun

          As I said below,you did not read this report correctly:

          “The models indicate that the provisions subsidizing renewable electricity reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while those for ethanol and other biofuels may have slightly increased greenhouse gas emissions.”

          I agree with it: Solar and wind make electricity and reduce greenhouse gas,but subsidies to agro business for ethanol and biofuels have the exact opposite effect.

          But of course you don’t believe in the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change,what the use to continue this discussion with you if you are so happy with the energy from fossil fuels I don’t see your interest in the LENR and renewable energies development, except to be the mouth piece of the people who want to kill it.

          • Omega Z

            Alain
            I think your misreading Christopher. My interpretation is you can dress up a pig to look pretty, but it’s still a pig. Christopher calls it as he sees it. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have concerns about the environment. Some of his past posts supports this.

            Solar panels cradle to grave produce 50% as much CO2 as a Coal plant. By the same token- Natural Gas also produces 50% as much CO2 as a Coal plant. TPTB don’t tell the whole story. Just ask the Chinese about the real environmental cost of Solar.

            It is also foolish to think LENR is a true green energy. It will also have an environmental impact. Just to a much smaller degree & hopefully a degree that is manageable & sustainable. Is society intelligent enough for the task?

            Note there are people who want to save the planet at all costs & our extinction is not excluded from that cost. Silly people. It is not the planet that needs saving. It isn’t going anywhere very soon tho 1 day the Sun will envelope it.
            .
            The world will change with or without humanity. It has been a block of ice at times & molten hot at others long before we were here. It will happen again. That is why people like Stephen Hawking are so adamant that we get off this rock if humanity wants to survive.

            Note CO2 levels have been at historic lows for a long time. Had it dropped just a little, Life as we know it probably would not exist. At today’s levels, had the comet not caused the dinosaurs extinction, They would still be extinct today. Tho there is a long lag period, there is a direct symbiotic correlation between CO2 & Oxygen levels in the atmosphere. A mere 3% drop in oxygen levels would make fire near impossible.

          • Alain Samoun

            ” misreading Christopher”
            Don’t think so – See his youtube movie, further below,wanting to stop wind energy because it kills birds – Like we should stop making cars as they kill animals on the road and,by the same token, let’s stop bringing oil tankers as they kill birds too when they sink.
            His criticism of PV don’t make more sens. If you say “Solar panels cradle to grave produce 50% as much CO2 as a Coal plant” I say let’s replace all coal plants with PV,like we are doing it in California,we will save 50% energy cost, clean the air and fight the climate change.

            I don’t know if ” LENR will be a true green energy” Depend what you call true but so far, for me, it is in the category of clean renewable energy.

            When people say that they want to save the planet,what they mean is to keep the planet as a place for humans and all life to survive and evolve. We all know that the planet will be extinct one day that’s no reason to make it unfit for life quicker.

            As said Martin Luther-King “We must learn to live together, if not we will all die together like idiots,”

          • Omega Z

            ” misreading Christopher” I meant he does care about the environment.

            As to Fossil fuels, They are just a step in progression of society. Without them, most technologies today would not have come about. We do need to move on & those fossil sources will be needed long after LENR or whatever replaces them for other uses. But without them, Solar & wind would be more primitive then it is today.

            Both wind & solar will have both known & unknown detrimental effects. It’s already known that wind turbines can change wind currents. Just as forests, hills & mountains. They can change rainfall patterns that can turn productive land into deserts. Like Christopher, I’m skeptical that these are the answer. Society has a history of making things worse when we rush to make things better.

            People bring up coal as killing people. How many did it save. Life is about trade offs. Vaccines will have detrimental effects to X number of people out of every 100K. But how many did it save from the disease it eradicates. We need to keep things in perspective. This isn’t an argument to continue using coal, but it helped advance society. Possibly LENR will take us to the next step.

          • Alain Samoun

            You said:
            “wind turbines can change wind currents…(they) can turn productive land into deserts”

            That’s a new one omega! You should add it to the movie of your friend Calder – You must have the same source of (des) information that him …

  • I recently purchased a photovoltaic powered guitar tuner, a TASCAM TC-1S for $5.99. It is a proper and reasonable use of photovoltaic technology. You can call it “solar powered,” but it will actually mainly be recharged via interior lighting.

    http://www.musiciansfriend.com/accessories/tascam-tc-1s-chromatic-tuner

    I also have a CASIO light powered hand-held calculator. No one subsidized my purchase of these two items, and no one mandated I buy them. They are correct uses of a technology that sells itself. Use the right tool for the right job. If you use the wrong tool for the wrong job, you can subsidize them and mandate them, but you still will not do the world any good.

    • Alain Samoun

      By the same token,if you buy a PV panel you will produce clean and renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      • To such a tiny degree that it could not possibly have any effect on our climate according to the federal government’s own National Research Council. The positive effects of the solar fad are immeasurably tiny. The negative effects are tremendous, such as higher costs for food and energy, more unemployment, and a bigger trade deficit because solar cells are now made in China almost exclusively. Solar is a victory of symbolism over substance. You cannot eat impotent symbolic gestures or pay your rent with good intentions. It’s all political hype, not a solution to anything.

        • Alain Samoun

          As I said below,you did not read the National Research Council report correctly:

          “The models indicate that the provisions subsidizing renewable electricity reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while those for ethanol and other biofuels may have slightly increased greenhouse gas emissions.”

          I agree with it: Solar and wind make electricity and reduce greenhouse gas,but subsidies to agro business for ethanol and biofuels have the exact opposite effect.
          But of course you don’t believe in the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change,what the use to continue this discussion with you if you are so happy with the energy from fossil fuels I don’t see your interest in the LENR and renewable energies development, except to be the mouth piece of the people who want to kill it.

          • Omega Z

            Alain
            I think your misreading Christopher. My interpretation is you can dress up a pig to look pretty, but it’s still a pig. Christopher calls it as he sees it. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have concerns about the environment. Some of his past posts supports this.

            Solar panels cradle to grave produce 50% as much CO2 as a Coal plant. By the same token- Natural Gas also produces 50% as much CO2 as a Coal plant. TPTB don’t tell the whole story. Just ask the Chinese about the real environmental cost of Solar.

            It is also foolish to think LENR is a true green energy. It will also have an environmental impact. Just to a much smaller degree & hopefully a degree that is manageable & sustainable. Is society intelligent enough for the task?

            Note there are people who want to save the planet at all costs & our extinction is not excluded from that cost. Silly people. It is not the planet that needs saving. It isn’t going anywhere very soon tho 1 day the Sun will envelope it.
            .
            The world will change with or without humanity. It has been a block of ice at times & molten hot at others long before we were here. It will happen again. That is why people like Stephen Hawking are so adamant that we get off this rock if humanity wants to survive.

            Note CO2 levels have been at historic lows for a long time. Had it dropped just a little, Life as we know it probably would not exist. At today’s levels, had the comet not caused the dinosaurs extinction, They would still be extinct today. Tho there is a long lag period, there is a direct symbiotic correlation between CO2 & Oxygen levels in the atmosphere. A mere 3% drop in oxygen levels would make fire near impossible.

          • Alain Samoun

            ” misreading Christopher”
            Don’t think so – See his youtube movie, further below,wanting to stop wind energy because it kills birds – Like we should stop making cars as they kill animals on the road and,by the same token, let’s stop bringing oil tankers as they kill birds too when they sink.
            His criticism of PV don’t make more sens. If you say “Solar panels cradle to grave produce 50% as much CO2 as a Coal plant” I say let’s replace all coal plants with PV,like we are doing it in California,we will save 50% energy cost, clean the air and fight the climate change.

            I don’t know if ” LENR will be a true green energy” Depend what you call true but so far, for me, it is in the category of clean renewable energy.

            When people say that they want to save the planet,what they mean is to keep the planet as a place for humans and all life to survive and evolve. We all know that the planet will be extinct one day that’s no reason to make it unfit for life quicker.

            As said Martin Luther-King “We must learn to live together, if not we will all die together like idiots,”

          • Omega Z

            ” misreading Christopher” I meant he does care about the environment.

            As to Fossil fuels, They are just a step in progression of society. Without them, most technologies today would not have come about. We do need to move on & those fossil sources will be needed long after LENR or whatever replaces them for other uses. But without them, Solar & wind would be more primitive then it is today.

            Both wind & solar will have both known & unknown detrimental effects. It’s already known that wind turbines can change wind currents. Just as forests, hills & mountains. They can change rainfall patterns that can turn productive land into deserts. Like Christopher, I’m skeptical that these are the answer. Society has a history of making things worse when we rush to make things better.

            People bring up coal as killing people. How many did it save. Life is about trade offs. Vaccines will have detrimental effects to X number of people out of every 100K. But how many did it save from the disease it eradicates. We need to keep things in perspective. This isn’t an argument to continue using coal, but it helped advance society. Possibly LENR will take us to the next step.

          • Alain Samoun

            You said:
            “wind turbines can change wind currents…(they) can turn productive land into deserts”

            That’s a new one omega! You should add it to the movie of your friend Calder – You must have the same source of (dis) information that him …

  • an ambitious but economically sound decision by Apple

    “The company also announced it wants its supply chain to eventually be entirely powered by renewable energy, a much taller order than the previous objective of powering all of its facilities this way. Currently Apple generates enough renewable energy to power around 87 percent of its worldwide facilities. Including the supply chain will require some 60 times more power to come from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biogas, geothermal, and hydropower. ”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/11/3657221/apple-sustainable-paper-annoucement/

  • A solar guy told me it would be about a grand per panel. Bottom line (electricity is cheap where I live) break even point in about ten years. Can you imagine how energy systems will evolve in ten years? Unimaginable. I expect a CF device and Tesla battery system by then.

    Going solar reminds me of the saying “It’s never a good time to buy a computer” because they’re evolving so rapidly.

    I recently put up a metal roof on a barn. it was a dark green that blended in with the hemlocks. Would be interesting if they could make a solar system that, a) didn’t look like a bunch of block like grids and b) could offer some color. That way they’d be efficient but also beautiful. My home dates back to 1840. Would hate to mess it up with a bunch of plexi glass covered, black rectangles.

  • Nigel Appleton

    For me. the future will be solar PV with battery storage, topped up where necessary with cheap night-time grid power

    My ecat will be used for heating and hot water

    If necessary, I’ll put the wife, kids, and cat on a treadmill-powered generator to top up

    I don’t see LENR power generation at the individual home level as practicable yet – at least not in suburbs, as opposed to remote homesteads. Maybe when thermionic generators come of age, or thermoacoustic heat engines….

    Interesting times!

  • Omega Z

    ONE of the problem with Solar Cells is that Sunlight comes in many different spectrum’s & require different variations of technology for conversion of these spectrum’s to electricity. Thus all manufactures focus on the largest spectrum’s for there specific panels each having various efficiency success.

    I have often wondered if some adaptation of Blue Ray technology could be employed at a nano level. It uses multiple substrate layers that reacts to laser light of different colors or allows it to pass through to the next layer.

    Anyway, Other issues are sunlight availability & cost will always be a factor. Alleviating Solar energies deficiencies adds additional layers of cost. All the hype on costs dropping are for the most part just that. Hype. Materials will increase in costs as demand increases & labor cost in China is on the rise. If the largest PV manufacturer plant in the world located in China can’t avoid bankruptcy with $2 an hour labor & massive Government subsidies, costs will & must go up or manufacturing will cease

    Frank: “I am not sure about his assertion that the high cost of solar energy is paid by the taxpayer.”

    I am certain Frank. It is done with subsidies & (Slight of Hand) cost shifting. Charging other customers more for the cheaper Fossil generated energy to offset the higher cost PV/Wind energy.

    Energy companies also don’t have to absorb energy not used, but still have sweetheart Government deals(Pay for it anyway) that throw these costs back on other consumers. Then comes battery storage costs that will also come back to these people who can’t afford the installation of Solar. Robin hood in reverse.

    As to Subsidies for the E-Cat. I don’t see that nor think it is even necessary. Subsidies are usually reserved for things with negative implications. E-cat’s if what claimed to be provide their own incentives. Demand will outstrip supply for a long while.

    What one might see is Government involvement in promoting & funding tech school programs. There is presently a 10 year waiting list for new power plant construction. There is a large shortage of skilled tradesmen in the world. OK. The track record says maybe not in the U.S., But I’m sure other countries will see the void & take actions to fill it.

    • Alain Samoun

      “Materials will increase in costs as demand increases & labor cost in China is on the rise”

      Hum… Anyway,what the Chinese announced lately is their focus on automation to replace labor. Other countries will do the same and cost will go down like the computers and all electronics these days.

      http://io9.com/chinas-manufacturers-are-shifting-towards-zero-labor-fa-1702000971

      As to Subsidies for Ecat, this would make sens to reduce quickly greenhouse gases and lower the dependency to oil producing countries,especially for Europe and partly for USA. E-Cat and all renewable enrgies are the fossil energy killers

      • Omega Z

        You still have the constraints of skilled labor. I believe your speaking of Foxconn/Apple. And Even robotics have an hourly cost. From $2 to $5 dollars an hour depending on complexity. Note also, solar panel manufacturers are already state of the art out of necessity. The slightest contamination can mess up your whole day & more.

        China has stated that they plan to constrain production of rare earth materials & within 10 years stopping all exports of raw material. It is their aim to raise prices.

        “As the only U.S. lithium producer, Rockwood Holdings operates a continental brine production facility in the Silver Peak, Nevada area”

        Now you know why Musk located his Mega factory where he did. It will cost more but he hopes transport cost will offset some of that. Another potential site straddles the Nevada/Oregon border and I believe there is a rush to reopen a mine in Oregon. A new mine can take 15/20 years to open for production.

        Note all rare earth materials are commodities & are subject to market pressure. Increased demand usually results in price rise. Also, Rare doesn’t mean rare, but sparsely scattered & requires tons of material to obtain ounces or a few pounds.

        They estimate 250 billion tons of lithium in the oceans. Time to filter these things out at the desal plants. A great way to offset water costs.

  • Omega Z

    ONE of the problem with Solar Cells is that Sunlight comes in many different spectrum’s & require different variations of technology for conversion of these spectrum’s to electricity. Thus all manufactures focus on the largest spectrum’s for there specific panels each having various efficiency success.

    I have often wondered if some adaptation of Blue Ray technology could be employed at a nano level. It uses multiple substrate layers that reacts to laser light of different colors or allows it to pass through to the next layer.

    Anyway, Other issues are sunlight availability & cost will always be a factor. Alleviating Solar energies deficiencies adds additional layers of cost. All the hype on costs dropping are for the most part just that. Hype. Materials will increase in costs as demand increases & labor cost in China is on the rise. If the largest PV manufacturer plant in the world located in China can’t avoid bankruptcy with $2 an hour labor & massive Government subsidies, costs will & must go up or manufacturing will cease

    Frank: “I am not sure about his assertion that the high cost of solar energy is paid by the taxpayer.”

    I am certain Frank. It is done with subsidies & (Slight of Hand) cost shifting. Charging other customers more for the cheaper Fossil generated energy to offset the higher cost PV/Wind energy.

    Energy companies also don’t have to absorb energy not used, but still have sweetheart Government deals(Pay for it anyway) that throw these costs back on other consumers. Then comes battery storage costs that will also come back to these people who can’t afford the installation of Solar. Robin hood in reverse.

    As to Subsidies for the E-Cat. I don’t see that nor think it is even necessary. Subsidies are usually reserved for things with negative implications. E-cat’s if what claimed to be provide their own incentives. Demand will outstrip supply for a long while.

    What one might see is Government involvement in promoting & funding tech school programs. There is presently a 10 year waiting list for new power plant construction. There is a large shortage of skilled tradesmen in the world. OK. The track record says maybe not in the U.S., But I’m sure other countries will see the void & take actions to fill it.

    • Alain Samoun

      “Materials will increase in costs as demand increases & labor cost in China is on the rise”

      Hum… Anyway,what the Chinese announced lately is their focus on automation to replace labor. Other countries will do the same and cost will go down like the computers and all electronics these days.

      http://io9.com/chinas-manufacturers-are-shifting-towards-zero-labor-fa-1702000971

      As to Subsidies for Ecat, this would make sens to reduce quickly greenhouse gases and lower the dependency to oil producing countries,especially for Europe and partly for USA. E-Cat and all renewable enrgies are the fossil energy killers

      • Omega Z

        You still have the constraints of skilled labor. I believe your speaking of Foxconn/Apple. And Even robotics have an hourly cost. From $2 to $5 dollars an hour depending on complexity. Note also, solar panel manufacturers are already state of the art out of necessity. The slightest contamination can mess up your whole day & more.

        China has stated that they plan to constrain production of rare earth materials & within 10 years stopping all exports of raw material. It is their aim to raise prices.

        “As the only U.S. lithium producer, Rockwood Holdings operates a continental brine production facility in the Silver Peak, Nevada area”

        Now you know why Musk located his Mega factory where he did. It will cost more but he hopes transport cost will offset some of that. Another potential site straddles the Nevada/Oregon border and I believe there is a rush to reopen a mine in Oregon. A new mine can take 15/20 years to open for production.

        Note all rare earth materials are commodities & are subject to market pressure. Increased demand usually results in price rise. Also, Rare doesn’t mean rare, but sparsely scattered & requires tons of material to obtain ounces or a few pounds.

        They estimate 250 billion tons of lithium in the oceans. Time to filter these things out at the desal plants. A great way to offset water costs.

  • Omega Z

    LENR power could directly replace current power plants with the primary difference being fuel costs & fuel transport(Rail/Pipelines) no longer needed. This also allows for local distribution(Power plants at cities edge) rather then the highly centralized systems of today. Being much smaller in scale, they also don’t need vast amounts of cooling water & the waste heat being local can be utilized by local industry.

  • Omega Z

    According to the DOE, 35% will be wind/solar by 2050 if investment is greatly increased. It also requires 10 trillion$ in smart grid upgrades not including storage capacity.

    Don’t worry. It will be 35%, but demand will be drastically reduced from today’s energy use. Proposed is thermostats set to 65`F in the winter & 90`F for summer cooling all controlled by the smart grid. They also show a graph with 50 cent per Kwh costs. That alone will make people disconnect anything not essential.

    I have a better Idea. Build an Underground home & reduce energy needs by about 80%. They are cheaper to build then stick houses, cheaper property tax, cheaper insurance, less maintenance & many other advantages. You build partly below ground while berming the upper portion. Thus no concern of hillsides facing certain directions or the lack of. They have the technology to literally pipe-in sunlight. Suedo windows using low wattage LED’s that double as TV-Entertainment center powered only when in the room. Your energy needs would be so low that you could easily be completely off grid & tell TPTB to take a hike…

    • EEStorFanFibb

      yes building (at least partially) underground is a great idea. “the average temperature of the earth once below the frost line is between 55 and 57 degrees Fahrenheit (13 to 14 degrees Celsius). ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_sheltering

      or at least use a heat pump that can draw from under ground sources.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Iceland_Keldur_Earth_covered_homes.JPG/250px-Iceland_Keldur_Earth_covered_homes.JPG

      • Omega Z

        Yes, Properly designed, you could probably get by with a Geothermal heat pump that use 200 watts in total for heat & AC. Best get a design engineer started on that. They don’t make them that small.

        Basically, You only need to heat the incoming fresh air flow & with a heat exchanger, very little at that. For cooling, you could probably get by with a modified dehumidifier.

        We have pretty harsh winters where I live. There is a couple just out side of town with an underground. There heating bill was $50 using propane which, you know, costs double natural gas. Did I mention- That was their bill for the entire heating season.

        As to the picture. Not quite what I had in mind, but you have the basic idea.
        Many people don’t like the idea, but I’ve been in a couple where you don’t really realize it’s underground. I think many would change their mind if exposed to one.

        It’s not what they think. It’s not a cold dark cave. I’ve been in 1 of those also. So dark, you can’t see the light from the flashlight. It’s Eerie.

  • Omega Z

    I don’t think the term work is at issue. The verdict of Can it be harnessed to be of benefit is still out. Given a little time, I could make a list of things that work, but are of no real use or benefit…

  • Omega Z

    “Many droughts in 2010 were exacerbated by climate change”

    There is no compelling evidence of that. It is simple opinions.
    What CO2 has done is increased food production. There is both correlation & evidence of that. The drought that hit the Midwest was partly mitigated by the fact that plants need much less water with higher CO2 levels. This was not an unprecedented drought. Just a normal periodic drought. You can set your calender by it.

    CO2 is responsible for the greening around desert fringes without an increase in moisture. It is considered possible that these greening areas will increase the rainfall in these areas. Thus shrinking the deserts.

    Southern Cali is just entering it’s normal state. It is a desert that has been artificially greened for decades during an abnormal wet period. They were warned. They just didn’t want to hear it.

    I lived in a place like that for a while. Had a discussion with a Geological Engineer. He told of the arguments he had with the developers & city managers that the wet period was near it’s end. They didn’t care. They planned on moving on before then. It would be somebody else’s problem.

    This is how many water shortages tend to happen. A developer comes in to a place with a normal water supply capable of supplying a population of 3 million of which is already there. Land is cheap. 20 years latter, they have built 8 million new homes. Oh my. We have a water shortage. Oh, It must be climate change.

    Oh well. Just pay less attention to what TPTB say & more to what they do & approve.
    Boeing estimates 50K more aircraft in the next 30 years. That’s a lot of CO2. They will be more efficient, but that’s demand from the market. Fuel is the main expense after purchase.
    The UN approved & signed off on 800 more coal fired plants to be built in the next 10 years. They did add the caveat that they all need to have scrubbers installed(For appearances sake-Seriously they said that.). That has no effect on CO2. Just particulate release.

    If CO2 was really the boogeyman they say it is, Don’t you think they would claim some type of emanate domain & take over Rossi’s, Mills & others research and rush it forward. If their concern was real they would. Not going to happen. However, If they should do that. I will concede I was wrong.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      now we are into climate denier territory and Frank hates that.

      you can hand wave away all you want. I am not going to engage you in a pointless battle.

  • Omega Z

    Yes Fibb,
    Tho we disagree on some things, We do agree we need to replace Fossil fuels. Even if they were perfectly clean & green, they have other valuable purposes & when there gone. There gone. Something we may come to regret.

    We know in time we can obtain nickel from elsewhere besides earth. Oil? Nowhere I’m aware of in this solar system & my Galactic passport hasn’t been approved..

    • LilyLover

      I grant you the realization or the moral authority to lack the need for an “approved” “passport” for intergalactic travel. Like the birds on Earth travel freely as they please, I approve your eligibility with the insistence of any such approval being an immorally artificial construct and thereby needless, yet if you must seek approval, I approve it.

      Enjoy!!!

  • EEStorFanFibb

    A very good article about not where solar power is at the moment but where it’s going. Naysayers like to poo poo solar based on current pricing or worse 3 year old numbers which are so wrong it’s laughable.

    What they miss is where the prices are heading. That’s the real story.

    “we have reached the point where low costs are driving installations higher, which in turn drives costs lower, which in turn drives installations higher. The virtuous circle seems to be locked in and based on history, we can expect further 20 percent cost reductions with each doubling of capacity, with no inherent limit to cost reductions over time.

    Under this trend, we can expect by 2020, under a 30 percent global rate of growth, to see total solar costs for utility-scale systems at around $0.84 per watt, based on GTM Research’s projected $1.10 per watt for 2017. By 2025, the cost drops to about $0.54 per watt, and by 2030 it will be a practically free cost of $0.34 per watt. By 2040, we can expect under these trends to see costs at about 14 cents per watt. A 5-kilowatt home-size system would cost only $700.

    That counts as free in my book, because that system will provide power for about 25 years at almost no cost above the initial installation cost. Twenty-five years of production for $700 equates to about 2.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. For comparison, the average retail cost of power in California today is about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, so this future cost of solar power will be less than one-fifth the cost of today’s power. And this analysis leaves out inflation. If we include inflation, the comparison is even more favorable.”

    A well written article with conservative assumptions.

    http://ca.equities.com/2015/03/the-solar-singularity-is-nigh/

    more articles by the same author… http://www.greentechmedia.com/authors/Tam+Hunt

  • A very good article about not where solar power is at the moment but where it’s going. Naysayers like to poo poo solar based on current pricing or worse 3 year old numbers which are so wrong it’s laughable.

    What they miss is where the prices are heading. That’s the real story.

    “we have reached the point where low costs are driving installations higher, which in turn drives costs lower, which in turn drives installations higher. The virtuous circle seems to be locked in and based on history, we can expect further 20 percent cost reductions with each doubling of capacity, with no inherent limit to cost reductions over time.

    Under this trend, we can expect by 2020, under a 30 percent global rate of growth, to see total solar costs for utility-scale systems at around $0.84 per watt, based on GTM Research’s projected $1.10 per watt for 2017. By 2025, the cost drops to about $0.54 per watt, and by 2030 it will be a practically free cost of $0.34 per watt. By 2040, we can expect under these trends to see costs at about 14 cents per watt. A 5-kilowatt home-size system would cost only $700.

    That counts as free in my book, because that system will provide power for about 25 years at almost no cost above the initial installation cost. Twenty-five years of production for $700 equates to about 2.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. For comparison, the average retail cost of power in California today is about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, so this future cost of solar power will be less than one-fifth the cost of today’s power. And this analysis leaves out inflation. If we include inflation, the comparison is even more favorable.”

    A well written article with conservative assumptions.

    http://ca.equities.com/2015/03/the-solar-singularity-is-nigh/

    more articles by the same author… http://www.greentechmedia.com/authors/Tam+Hunt

  • from “Recent Facts about Photovoltaics in Germany”

    http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

    4.1 Is PV power subsidized?

    No. The support is provided through a surcharge.
    The investment incentives for PV power generation are not supported by public funds.
    Whilst fragmentary reports often quote figures relating to past and future PV power
    feed-in tariff payments that amount to hundreds of billions and term these “subsidies”,
    a true subsidy is provided by public funds. The EEG, on the other hand, makes provisions
    for a surcharge in which energy consumers make a compulsory contribution towards
    transforming the energy system. This interpretation is also supported by the European
    Commission. The surcharge does not correspond to the total remuneration, but rather
    the differential costs, calculated as the difference between costs paid (remuneration)
    and revenues received (see section 3.5).

    On the costs side, the cumulative amount paid for PV power fed into the grid up to and
    including 2013 amounted to around 41 billion euros.

    To calculate the EEG surcharge, the financial benefits of PV power are determined according
    to the market clearing price on the European Energy Exchange (EEX) in Leipzig.
    By this method, the benefits of PV power are underestimated systematically. For one, PV
    power has long been having the desired effect on this market price, namely that of driving
    it downwards (see section 3.4). Second, the market price leaves out the heavy external
    costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power production (section 4.2). Considering total
    costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power production of ca. 10 €-cts/kWh, the additional
    costs of the PV feed-in tariff decline so quickly that the first intersection point occurs
    already in 2013 (see Figure 5). However, the new PV systems are those subject to future
    policy decisions. Therefore, new PV systems, installed in open spaces, must produce
    cheaper electricity than the existing fossil and nuclear power plants, when total costs are
    2015_Januar_07_Recent_Facts_about_PV_in_Germany2.docx24.02.15 23 (92)
    considered. The marginal costs of such systems decrease to zero and thereafter are negative.
    As it is expected that the external costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power shall soon become
    impossible to bear, the increase in RE shall ensure that electricity remains available
    at sustainable prices in the long term. Our industrial sector needs better prospects for a
    secure energy supply in the future, as do householders.

    The electricity policy can learn from the bitter lessons experienced in housing construction
    policy. Because comprehensive measures to renovate the existing building stock
    have not been undertaken to date, many low-income households must apply for social
    funds to be able to pay for their heating fuel. These funds flow, in part, then to foreign
    suppliers of gas and oil.

    What would be the price to pay if the German energy transformation fails? Without
    knowing this figure, it is difficult to make a statement as to the total costs required to
    transform our energy supply system.

    4.2 Are fossil fuel and nuclear energy production subsidized?

    Yes.
    Policy makers also influence the price of electricity generated by fossil fuel and nuclear
    power plants. Political decisions determine the price of CO2 emission allowances, conditions
    for filtering smoke and, where necessary, for the permanent storage of CO2 (carbon
    capture and storage, CCS), the taxation of nuclear power as well as insurance and
    safety requirements for nuclear power plants.

    This means that policy makers decide to what extent today’s energy consumers must
    bear responsibility for the elusive risks and burden of producing electricity from fossil
    fuel and nuclear sources. When these costs are considered more rigorously, it is likely
    that PV power will make the power mix less expensive, while the overall electricity generation
    price will be noticeably higher. Until this happens, fossil fuel and nuclear power
    will be sold at prices that conceal their external costs (see section 19.9, [DLR], [FÖS1])
    and pass the burden on to future generations.

    A study from the Forum Green Budget Germany [FÖS2] states: “For decades, the conventional
    energy sources of nuclear, hard coal and lignite have profited on a large scale
    from government subsidies in the form of financial assistance, tax concessions and other
    beneficial boundary conditions. In contrast to the renewable energies, a large portion of
    these costs is not accounted and paid for in a transparent manner. Rather, funds are
    appropriated from the national budget. If these costs were also to be added to the electricity
    price as a ‘conventional energy tariff,’ they would amount to 10.2 cts/kWh, which
    is almost three times the value of the Renewable Energy Tariff in 2012.” Up to now subsidies
    for the renewable energies have amounted to 54 billion euros. To compare, from
    1970 to 2012 subsidies for hard coal amounted to 177 billion euros, for brown coal at
    65 billion euros and for nuclear energy at 187 billion euros respectively.”

    According to estimates by the IEA, power generated by fossil fuels received more than
    544 billion dollars of subsidies worldwide in 2012 [IEA4].

    http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

  • “The bump in Germany coal use is over. No comment from those who said it was proof the Energiewende was a failure.” – Chris Nelder

    Power from fossil fuel drops to 35-year low in Germany http://energytransition.de/2015/01/fossil-fuel-power-at-35-year-low-in-germany/

    Images:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFQ48V7W8AADEMc.jpg

    http://energytransition.de/files/2015/01/01electricityfromfossilfuels1.png

  • all fossil fuels have going for them at this point is inertia

    “Saudi oil minister Ali Al-Naimi said on Thursday the kingdom envisaged
    the fact that fossil fuels could become unnecessary before the middle
    of the century and was investing in renewable energy for that reason.”

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/saudi-oil-climate-idINKBN0O61ND20150521