just for some to understand, reading an article (french SciAm) on organic
PV (photovoltaic) cell,
they explain that for modern crystalline silicon cells,
25% of the life energy production of the cell, is consumed to make the
silicon.

so, translating to LENR language, PV device have a COP<<4

reduce it by other costs...

anyway it is much better than at the beginning of renewable fashion, where
COP was <1

anyway; I suspect that any energy source with a consolidated cost higher
than the cost of usual energy, have a COP=(cost of usual energy)/(cost of
this energy) <<1, since the cost mean consumption of goods, and the price
of goods is energy, or price of other goods, or workers, which are partly
consuming energy or goods, or work...
even raw material in fact have the price to extract them, which mean :
energy+work+goods

anyway some expensive energy mich be competitive if the usual energy cost
more than the usual cost because of transportation.

for example solar panel, or wing generators, are good in place where
bringing grid, or tank truck is very expensive... then you install a
photo-voltaic non refillable battery, charged in energy in countries with
cheap energy (china today, occident in the old time... maybe is the recent
reduction of cost of cell more linked with cheaper energy and smaller
worker energy consumption)...

like
E<=>mc^2
I suspect
Money<=>Energy*Price_of_Cheapest_Energy_Unit

this analysis in unacceptable because like LENr it would kill all a part of
industry, especially some recent dynamic sectors.
Also it might kill some visible GDP growth... and part of today's growth,
is doing useless things, officially to allow rigid society to share wealth,
but in fact concentrating it again...



2012/5/14 Chemical Engineer <[email protected]>

> Makes utility scale photovoltaic and concentrated solar thermal plants
> even less justifiable economically
> Cleaner burning than coal - no more new CFBs
> More CNG vehicles to appear.
> Good bridge to LENR
> Less reliance on mid-east oil
>
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012, wrote:
>
>> http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm
>
>

Reply via email to