Brilliant Light Power

[Wanderer]

Better to hold out hope for ITER.

Amen.

[Wanderer]

I've always wondered if a wind quintet could power a windmill and solve our energy problems.

Think of the possibilities! A wind ensemble could power a whole aeolian plant. Simple science.

[bwv 1080]

Amen.

yes, fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be.  Commercial fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years

[Todd]

yes, fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be.  Commercial fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years

But this time is different.  ITER will go live in 2027.  Unless there are delays. 

[bwv 1080]

But this time is different.  ITER will go live in 2027.  Unless there are delays.

Yep, even if it does its a long way off from being economic.  A 500MW combined cycle plant currently costs a few hundred million dollars, say $0.60 / watt and by 2027 500MW of PV panels will cost a fraction of that, and have no fuel costs and virtually no maintenance.  ITER's cost is over $40 million per watt and nobody really knows how to deal with the neutron radiation destroying the plant over a longer time period

[Todd]

Yep, even if it does its a long way off from being economic.

I doubt it will ever be economically feasible to utilize fusion.  ITER is a poorly managed fantasy project.  Solar is another technology that has been touted for a long time as an energy source for the future, and while it's costs are dropping and will continue to drop, it has the same intrinsic physical limitation as wind: Intermittency.  Without enormous advances in large scale battery technology, integrating such power sources into the grid on a large scale will end up costing huge sums, and will still require carbon heavy energy sources (ie, coal and gas) to continuously meet demand.  Hydro is the main renewable source of the past, present, and near-term and medium-term (and probably long-term) future.

[bwv 1080]

I doubt it will ever be economically feasible to utilize fusion.  ITER is a poorly managed fantasy project.  Solar is another technology that has been touted for a long time as an energy source for the future, and while it's costs are dropping and will continue to drop, it has the same intrinsic physical limitation as wind: Intermittency.  Without enormous advances in large scale battery technology, integrating such power sources into the grid on a large scale will end up costing huge sums, and will still require carbon heavy energy sources (ie, coal and gas) to continuously meet demand.  Hydro is the main renewable source of the past, present, and near-term and medium-term (and probably long-term) future.

sure, but gas + solar + wind is the future.  I think just about any homeowner in TX would slap some PV panels on his roof to defray summer AC costs if it could be easily financed and pay for itself (without subsidy) in a few years

[Todd]

sure, but gas + solar + wind is the future.  I think just about any homeowner in TX would slap some PV panels on his roof to defray summer AC costs if it could be easily financed and pay for itself (without subsidy) in a few years

Primary renewable energy sources will vary by region to some extent.  What will work great in Texas will not work so great in the Northwest.  And solar has a long, long road ahead of it to become a significant source of energy.  In 2012 in the US, only about 0.11% of total energy production was from solar, and about 6% or so total from non-hydro renewables.  Updating generation capacity and upgrading the power grid to handle intermittency will take three or four decades and cost trillions.  I have no problem with that, I just think people should be realistic in their expectations.  And hopefully the US (and other countries) don't become too enamored of any one or two technologies and lavish obscene subsidies on favored industries, like Germany has done with solar, resulting in inflated prices that act as a heavily regressive tax.  Of course, I suppose one could view the Fifth Fleet as an oil industry subsidy of sorts.

[Rinaldo]

And hopefully the US (and other countries) don't become too enamored of any one or two technologies and lavish obscene subsidies on favored industries, like Germany has done with solar, resulting in inflated prices that act as a heavily regressive tax.

It works pretty well for them so far. And the subsidized headstart will pay off immensely in the long term.

[Todd]

It works pretty well for them so far. And the subsidized headstart will pay off immensely in the long term.

Not everyone is as convinced as you are.  Of course, this is only one article, but there are others that have been published that are readily available online.  And here's the thing, even the German government has started to scale back on its programs.  There are other articles that more adequately address the intrinsically regressive nature of electric rates under the existing subsidization programs.  I'm not familiar with scholarly articles of the subject, but I have to think at least a few exist.

Even after years of subsidies, if you take one step up geographically, you will see that while Germany may be into solar, in the EU market as a whole, hydro remains far and away the largest source of renewable energy, providing something like fifteen times as much power than solar, just like other regions of the world.  The cost per megawatt hour of hydro is still much lower, to boot. 

Something else that must be considered as it pertains to German solar policy is the parasitic behavior of German firms overseas.  For instance, Solar World has operations in the US, just a few miles from where I live, and they demand subsidies from the local government and have lobbied the US federal government to place sanctions on Chinese PV manufacturers, all while delivering far fewer jobs than promised, and those jobs are subject to cost cutting - ie, layoffs.  It's no surprise, of course, that firms that rely so heavily on rent seeking behavior as part of their business model behave in such a way, but the results have not been up to snuff in terms of technology development, jobs, cost effectiveness, or power generation. 

[Rinaldo]

Even after years of subsidies, if you take one step up geographically, you will see that while Germany may be into solar, in the EU market as a whole, hydro remains far and away the largest source of renewable energy, providing something like fifteen times as much power than solar, just like other regions of the world.  The cost per megawatt hour of hydro is still much lower, to boot. 

Something else that must be considered as it pertains to German solar policy is the parasitic behavior of German firms overseas.  For instance, Solar World has operations in the US, just a few miles from where I live, and they demand subsidies from the local government and have lobbied the US federal government to place sanctions on Chinese PV manufacturers, all while delivering far fewer jobs than promised, and those jobs are subject to cost cutting - ie, layoffs.  It's no surprise, of course, that firms that rely so heavily on rent seeking behavior as part of their business model behave in such a way, but the results have not been up to snuff in terms of technology development, jobs, cost effectiveness, or power generation.

You raise valid points. Yet, I'm all for solar (while trying to solve fusion on the side), because the sheer volume of energy that's out there all the time kinda makes it obvious. I find it highly reasonable to go after that energy and go after it hard, even if it causes short-term inconveniences. The BS that comes with politics and corruption obviously makes that transition much more painful than it should be, but the longer we hesitate, the deeper the hole we're currently digging under ourselves will be.

[Todd]

Yet, I'm all for solar (while trying to solve fusion on the side), because the sheer volume of energy that's out there all the time kinda makes it obvious.

I'm all for solar, too.  And wind.  And hydro.  And geothermal.  Being from a coastal state, I'm all for wave power, as well.  Surely the ocean offers permanent energy.  The problem is that cost effective wave power generation, which is over a decade into development now, is decades away, if it can ever be made cost effective.  I also like nuclear, though my previous enthusiasm has been tempered somewhat by the fact that there simply isn't enough fuel to make it a viable really long-term (ie, centuries) primary energy source on the scale needed by the US or China.  (Waste management is less of a concern; when I first learned of waste vitrification about twenty years ago from a cousin who was working on research at the Hanford plant, and he described the fascinating process in the mundane language of someone who spent many, many hours working on it, it became clear that the primary hurdle to successful waste management is emotion.)  The only so-called green energy source I have an issue with is biomass, especially as it is being misused now, primarily by European countries which have taken to burning wood pellets to meet political CO2 targets - forests are being felled to keep the lights on, and the supposed reduction of CO2 emissions will actually take decades to materialize.  (Euro governments are cooking the books; many of the pellets used for fuel are generated in other countries, which has the benefit of keeping the CO2 generated in the conversion from lumber to pellets out of the official figures for CO2 generation in the countries that burn the pellets for energy.)

It strikes me as quite obvious that long-term energy policy must rely on a mix of energy sources, which will vary by location, and my point earlier was that all countries need to avoid excessively costly and inefficient subsidy programs that are the result more of politics than efficient power generation.  This of course is a big challenge.  People really ought to refrain from becoming too fixated on any one technology, too.  Solar is but part of the mix, and for certain regions.  I can't see solar being much of a boon during Nordic winters, for instance.

And of course, global CO2 output will rise before it falls; it will be decades before aggregate CO2 output begins to decline, if it does then.  Of course, wealthier countries should move and are moving toward less carbon-intensive economies, but it will take decades more to move this technology to less advanced regions of the world.  That means that wealthier countries also need to make choices regarding allocating public resources to adaptive policies as well as mitigation policies in the next few decades.  We need to respond to the reality that coal will be the single largest source of power for many years to come.

Tying it back to this thread, pie in the sky technologies like ITER should certainly be funded, if only for spillover benefits, but policy making should be more concerned with what does and will work.  Snake oil like Blacklight is a waste of time.

[Henk]

Blacklight Power has renamed itself to Brilliant Light Power.

Mills added some exciting new content on a new website:
Main site: http://brilliantlightpower.com
http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

There's also a nice Kickstarter project going on. I pledged it.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1083188713/illustrating-the-search-for-hydrino-energy?ref=thanks_share

[North Star]

There's also a nice Kickstarter project going on. I pledged it.

Please, save your money instead of supporting the fraud.

[Henk]

Why are you guys so paranoid? Mills is a genius who has done much hard work and shows much persistence, he delivers a product and still he is blamed for being a fraud? Is there something wrong with you?

The guy has tamed the sun! And that with only a small team.

ITER is a fraud instead and also the LHC. Only wishful thinking.

[North Star]

Why are you guys so paranoid. Mills is a genius who has done much hard work and shows much persistence, he delivers a product and still he is blamed for being a fraud? Is there something wrong with you?

The guy has tamed the sun! And that with only a small team.

You ask why? Because there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this wacko's business model that violates the laws of physics. It's not a good idea to invest money in a technology that is based on a violation of the best currently accepted science.

[Henk]

You ask why? Because there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this wacko's business model that violates the laws of physics. It's not a good idea to invest money in a technology that is based on a violation of the best currently accepted science.

I have more confidence in genius that in a bunch of scholars.

[North Star]

I have more confidence in genius that in a bunch of scholars.

Genius according to who?

[Henk]

Genius according to who?

According to my own common sense and intuition and the fact that he amazes with his products whether it be science or technology.

[North Star]

According to my own common sense and intuition.

First of all, I'm sure you have never studied physics - Newtonian mechanics, not to mention quantum mechanics, right? If that is the case, your common sense and intuition aren't worth much, since the modern physics (and Mills's rehash of cold fusion doesn't differ here) is essentially counterintuitive. Seemingly continuous matter and energy are quantifiable, and so on. I also find it alarming that while you'd rather trust your own 'common sense and intuition' and a business owner who has never done anything but seek funding, for 25 years, instead of anyone who has actually studied physics or empirically tested Mills's claims, and found that they don't hold up, thinking that everyone else is paranoid..