Renewables and Modern Physics
As I mentioned in my last post, I’ll try to confine my comments on Renewable Energy World to areas that, for whatever reason, don’t seem to receive an abundance of coverage. And that’s a considerable challenge, considering the breadth and depth of writing here. To the end of stimulating conversation in one of these little-discussed areas, let me note that I come across a fairly constant barrage of claims concerning the supposedly abundant supply of free, clean energy derived from breakthroughs in modern physics. And I have to say that it makes sense to me, in some vague way, that when and if we come across a single theory that explains the origin and make-up of all the matter and energy of the universe, that this will be accompanied by a method of tapping into that infinite supply of energy. This in turn, one might think, will eliminate forever the considerable problems that are posed by mankind’s ever-expanding appetite for that energy. Those wishing to explore this are able to spend many hours – probably weeks or months -- sorting through YouTube videos in which inventors discuss their ostensible breakthroughs that claim to harvest the natural powers of the universe. I caution the reader not to expect this exploration to be easy; these presentations tend not to spare a great deal of flowery mathematics and physics – some obviously bogus – some so unclear that they’re (to me at least) totally indecipherable. As I’ve written abundantly at 2GreenEnergy.com, I’m a believer in the Conservation of Energy. I hate to sound small-minded, but I spend very little of my short life here on earth contemplating the truth of claims regarding machines that produce more energy than they consume. Having said that, I don’t write off energy-related ideas merely because they seem strange. In the first place, I have no doubt that those who look back on us here from the year 2100 will do so with a mixture of pity and contempt, based on our inability to look beyond the paradigms that have us locked so helplessly into place here in 2009. I also happen to believe that we’ve come across a great number of important truths that have been suppressed by the mainstream community. As one of a few examples, I happen to believe in the validity of cold fusion. My interviews with some top minds in modern physics have convinced me that the idea that the energy released from nuclear reactions in which heavy water is electrolyzed in the presence of palladium suggest that fusion reactions occur over far longer periods of time and at far lower temperatures than were previously thought possible. It appears to me that it was simply an intellectual error to suppose that fusion could only occur at the temperatures created in nuclear explosions. Perhaps even more controversial, I find credible the accusations of those who claim that big energy has conspired to discredit the whole idea. Yet, as I wrote in the Three Brass Tacks of Renewable Energy, this is a moot argument. If cold fusion could be brought forward to the point of practicality at all, it would require tens of millions of dollars of R&D money, and several decades. By that time, I believe, we will have worked out the issues surrounding much less exotic forms of clean energy. In particular, a solar thermal farm in the shape of a square a little over 100 miles on a side in the southwestern desert would supply more than enough power for the entire continent of North America. Yes, we have some issues to work out with respect to energy storage (see molten salt) and energy distribution (see high voltage DC), but I’m confident that these will be in place sometime before mid-century. If this audience appears to have an appetite for discussions like this one, I’ll write short posts on zero point energy and other "trippy" subjects from the annals of modern physics. As always, I welcome your comments. 
Bioenergy,
Geothermal Energy,
Green Power,
Hydropower,
Hydrogen - Fuel Cells,
Ocean Energy,
Solar Energy,
Wind Power,
Energy Efficiency
The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.
6 Reader Comments
Add Your Comment
Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions.
If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below. 
|
Craig Shields
|
Email
Bookmark
Print
Share
Add to my network
1 of 6
http://lenr-canr.org
This includes a bibliography of 3,500 papers on cold fusion, including 1,200 from mainstream peer-reviewed journals, and about 1,000 full text papers.
A great deal of progress has been made this year. The main page at LENR-CANR.org features an interesting new report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that recommends additional funding, and the News section discusses an important breakthrough at Osaka Nat. U. that was confirmed at Kobe Nat. U. and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.
Your estimate that it would take "tens of millions" to commercialize cold fusion is probably too low, and decades is too long. I have discussed this with many experts at the U.S. Navy, Toyota and elsewhere, and with Martin Fleischmann, the co-discoverer. They feel it will take approximately $300 million. This is based on the cost of similar solid-state surface effect and catalytic effect devices. How long it will take depends entirely on academic politics. For the last 20 years nearly all research funding has been blocked by rabid opposition to the research, mainly by rival scientists in plasma fusion and high energy physics. If this opposition can be pushed aside it seems likely that prototypes could be developed in 5 or 10 years.
Great progress has been made on a shoestring. Cold fusion has produced energy density and temperature equivalent to a fission reactor core, and it has produced fully-ignited stand alone reactions, and up to 300 MJ in a single run. Plasma fusion, on the other hand, has produce only 6 MJ and there are no plans to try for a fully ignited reaction in the next 30 to 50 years. The cold fusion devices that produced 300 MJ cost ~$100 whereas plasma fusion tokamaks cost billions of dollars each. So, all in all, cold fusion is much more promising and closer to practical reality.
Unfortunately, at present there seems to be little chance that the academic politics can be overcome, at least in the U.S.
The less exotic forms of energy you refer to may include things such as wind and solar power. It is a little unclear to me what you have in mind. Cold fusion would major advantages over these, especially in that it would be roughly 100 times cheaper in the first implementation, and thousands of times cheaper when it matures. It would reduce the per capita cost of energy in the U.S. from several thousand dollars to less than one dollar, mainly because the fuel is virtually free, no distribution network is needed (no power lines or gas stations), and the equipment is simple and cheap and does not require any pollution control. Energy density is high, as I said, so the equipment will be compact. At present consumption rates the fuel will last longer than the sun will shine.