An Environmental Case for Nuclear Power ( and LENR by Extension)

In an article recently published in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science and Technology NASA scientists Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen argue that using nuclear power in place of fossil fuels has already prevented 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths and if used into the future`save millions of more lives in coming decade. Here’s part of the abstract of the article

Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by mid-century, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces.

The estimates of numbers of deaths were based on such factors as mining accidents, lung diseases among miners, and air pollution. The authors did not include estimates of deaths based on global warming related factors. Further discussion of the study can be found here.

The environmental case for nuclear power is not uncommon these days, since it is a technology in use that has a chance of replacing fossil fuels in terms of power output that doesn’t emit CO2. Environmentalists like Bill Gates, George Monboit (of the Guardian), Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder) and now NASA’s James Hansen contend that carbon dioxide is more dangerous to the planet in the long term than radioactive waste, and even the chance of radiation leakage from a nuclear accident.

The point of this post is not to argue in favor of more nuclear fission plants, but to point out that if the case for the E-Cat, or other LENR technology, can be demonstrated conclusively, it is very possible that heavyweights in the environmental movement could move quickly to start backing cold fusion as a viable alternative to fossil fuels and become important lobbyists for its implementation. Surely they would prefer clean and safe LENR to dirty and dangerous nuclear fission.

So far, we haven’t really seen any influential environmental leaders (or any other kinds of influential leaders for that matter) publicly back LENR — but it seems reasonable to expect that this situation may quickly change. One would hope that at some point common sense would come into play and reasonable people would see the many advantages LENR has to offer once it is conclusively demonstrated.

In related news, the New York Times is reporting that James Hansen is retiring from NASA after 46 years, and is planning to spend more time lobbying for environmental causes.

  • robyn wyrick

    I have attempted to keep an open mind about Nuclear Fission for consumer energy, but that openness keeps freshly discovering the tens of thousands of years of toxicity of nuclear waste.

    We have no right to inflict that burden on the future of this world.

    Is Nuclear Fission better than our current approach to Coal and Oil, I’m sure there is a short term case to be made, but it’s a wildly false choice.

    Through conversation alone we could radically cut greenhouse gas emissions. Heck, we can dramatically cut our carbon emissions by adopting vegetarianism.

    We can also restrict the emissions allowed by power plants (all kinds of harmful emissions, not just carbon)

    And of course, we can have a national solar energy program. The upfront costs can be handled. Heck, if Germany can do it, America certainly can.

    Now, to be sure, there are serious people looking at Nuclear alternatives to the current model for Nuclear Fission energy production. And I support such research. But the current Nuclear Fission model is disastrous.

    • ken

      I agree with you on the solar, and short term nuclear fission benefits but vegetarianism is out of the question. You’re not going to talk the world into adopting tofu:P

      The long term effects of fusion power are not even optional. Every nuclear power plant ever built poses a clear and present danger to localized populations ranging from 0 to 1000 miles radius of it’s installation. God forbid a disaster happens on a windy day.

      The only answer to our energy crisis that has presented itself as conceivable, affordable, safe, and environmentally friendly is LENR.

      Wind turbine power poses a threat to national security because it very effectively blocks any Radar coverage past it’s point of installation. wind turbines, due to their current design, refract radar signals in all directions effectively creating a black hole in radar coverage. Now if we had no enemies in the world this wouldn’t be a problem but as it stands, Every wind turbine farm is a direct threat to our national security.

      Solar power is only as good as our ability to store electrical power generated by the solar grid. An infant probably recognizes that the sun goes down at night.

      Nuclear fission plants are a no brainer. Take Fukishima for instance. I’ll assume I don’t need to expound any more on the subject.

      So it comes down to LENR, All magnet motors, plasma engines, or even further on the fringe is Keshe plasma reactors. It’s obvious that LENR is the best option by far. Thank God for guys like Rossi who have sacrificed so much to make it a reality.


    • Warthog

      The “tens of thousands of years” argument is bogus. That is only true if you don’t recycle the plutonium. But even then, true DISPOSAL of the waste is actually simple. Cast the waste in ceramic form inside concrete “torpedos” and drop them in the ocean at a subduction zone. That is as permanent a method of disposal as is possible.

      • Ingo Heinscher

        Why bother with nuclear fission, as there is LENR?

        • Warthog

          True….but there is still all the “stockpiled” waste from existing fission plants that has to eventually be addressed. Yucca Mountain was a perfectly legit (and safe) storage site and method (subduction is more permanent), but unfortunately, politics (aka Harry Reid) has killed that.

          • clovis

            hi, guys
            It is said that by using the transmutation that occurs within lenr, that could be used to change this waste into harmless by products. and those old plants could be retrofitted with e-cat power and –wa la.

          • Peter Roe

            That may be possible some years down the road, but dealing with high level waste is a problem right now. To add to this problem without any solution available immediately, as the politicians of many countries are proposing, is folly of the highest order.

            P.S. “wa la”: Just fyi it’s ‘voilà!’ – French, literally meaning ‘look there!’, although ‘behold!’ may be closer in English.

        • Peter Roe

          Interesting that GE have a section at their Global Research subsidiary that is apparently devoted to acquiring ‘external technology’ :

          (From the Future Energy pitchfest)
          “Thanks for voting for your favorite energy/cleantech startup online. Now is your chance to see the finalists present in-person to top energy and cleantech Venture Capital investors like:

          John Freer – Manager, External Technology Initiatives at GE Global Research
          Nikhil Garg, Vice President at Black Coral Capital
          Gail Greenwald – Partner at Clean Energy Venture Group
          Ryan Kottenstette – Principal at Khosla Ventures
          Brook Porter – Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
          Dan Reicher – Executive Director of the Steyer-Taylor Center at Stanford University
          Willem Rensink – GameChanger at Shell International Exploration & Production
          Bilal Zuberi – Principal at General Catalyst Partners”

          Not surprisingly perhaps, Shell Gamechanger is in there, too.

          • Toni V


            I have no idea what this tells us. Could simply be nothing. Many have said that Ecats wouldn’t replace oil wholly but surely it does cut oil demand? GE has no connection with Rossi?

          • Peter Roe

            Who knows. It could mean that GE discount CF as a reality, or even that they want to look at ways to use a cheap, portable energy source in existing extraction/refinement processes. If CF is restricted to military/corporate usage then IC engine fuels and gas will be required for a long time to come.

          • clovis

            Hi, frank
            If the environmentalist, aren’t all over the e-cat–lenr– revolution .
            Then something stinks in Denmark, as they use to say, because e-cat and lenr is all about back to nature, end of story.

          • Roger Bird

            Remember that most environmentalists are liberals, and liberals follow the crowd, and the crowd has not yet discovered LENR.

          • Barry

            Hi Peter,
            I’m going tomorrow night to the MIT event. Maybe I’m biased but I really feel George Miley got aced out of the event. Being as popular as he was in the voting, I can’t understand why he didn’t become a staff pick. I’m curious to hear what the people there think of CF.

          • artefact

            Don’t forget your camera!

          • NJT

            Barry, your report will be interesting indeed…

          • Peter Roe

            Hi Barry – I agree about Miley and that makes me a bit suspicious of the whole thing. However it should still be interesting.

            I’m very curious about ‘UPower’, which appears to be a compact nuclear reactor, and would be interested in anything you can glean about this while you’re there. Tech info is very sparse but if it is not some kind of CF unit it must be a novel type of fission reactor that might give the hot cat a run for its money in military applications. Intriguing – I look forward to hearing anything you can tell us.


      • Peter Roe

        It would be necessary to drill deep holes into the edge of the plate that is ‘going under’, as anything on the surface would simply be scraped off at the slippage surface. Subduction is most likely not continuous, but intermittant with intervals of perhaps thousands of years betwen slippages, each of which would be a accompnied by crustal deformations and earthquakes. This means that the ‘torpedoes’ could not only lie around for millennia waiting to be ‘subducted’, but the violence when it comes could crush them or shear them apart, releasing the contents without any guarantee that this would occur deeply underground. I don’t think I would be in favour of your plan I’m afraid.

  • I like the “and LENR by extension” bit. LENR does offer all of the advantages of fission (except that it isn’t yet here). However, LENR doesn’t offer any of the myriad disadvantages of fission. Fukushima has left me feeling very unsure of the safety of fission. I do hope that LENR doesn’t prove to have some sort of yet undiscovered downside.

    • Bob

      I would have to agree on that.
      For many years I was very much in favour of nuclear power,.. until the Fukushima disaster.
      If that had occurred in some third world country I would have said it could be expected and used it as justification for not supporting uranium sales to countries with less than stringent standards in the handling of it. However, for something like this to occur in Japan, which is well familiar with both the technology and the results of a stuff up in the handling of it, is almost beyond belief.
      To place a nuclear plant low on the coastline in an area subject to tsunamis and then not have a fail-safe method of supplying cooling to the reactor in the event of one is boardering on criminal negligence.
      It’s not as if the operators had no idea of what they were dealing with.
      So although I still think nuclear power can be operated safely, I no longer have any faith that society can guarantee that it will be operated safely. People, and particularly companies take short cuts for the sake of cutting costs. Nuclear power in its present form is not an area where this is acceptable.
      Although I agree with the figures of how many deaths the conventional generation of power is causing, I am fearful of how many deaths the generation of power by nuclear methods can cause.
      The death toll from Fukashima was unexpectedly low. I believe that was from good fortune, not from good management.
      If we want to keep rolling that dice a few more times the result will eventually be catastrophic.

      • kemo sabe

        You could never guarantee a safe nuclear power plant, but that’s not the argument.

        You can guarantee that they are safer than existing fossil plants, and by orders of magnitude. If that’s not reason enough to swap fossil plants for nuclear plants, you’re not being rational.

        Fukushima showed that a nuclear power plant gone terribly wrong causes less environmental damage, and kills fewer people than a coal plant operated normally for its full life span.

        What do you mean by catastrophic? Chernobyl was about as catastrophic as imaginable, and including that in the calculations, nuclear is still between 100 and 1000 times safer in terms of deaths per unit energy.

        The biggest disaster from Fukushima is that it influenced superficial opinion, and thereby led to the closing many of Japan’s nuclear plants, and to replacing the energy with electricity generated from fossil fuels, and of course the delay it has introduced in the development and implementation of nuclear power solutions worldwide.

        • Bob

          By “catastrophic” I mean an explosion of the actual reactor core which would spred the contents of the reactor in a vapourisede form all over the surrounding country.
          There was an explosion at the Fukashima site but it was only a hydrogen explosion in the building and did not involve the core.
          I fully appreciate the chance of a reactor core explosion is minimal but it’s the major consequences of this which make me wonder if it’s all worthwhile.
          What we are presently doing is comparing certainty of a number of deaths from mining and burning coal with the remotely possible but far greater number of deaths by way of a major nuclear accident.
          It’s a difficult assessment for most.
          I would much prefer if we are to carry on with fission reactors then the design be upgraded to use core materials which cannot become explosive in any failure mode. The only problem then would be the disposal of the waste products, and I actaully don’t see that as a big problem. The only problem is to get a country to accept they can handle it.

          • kemo sabe

            If you’re talking about a nuclear explosion, it’s not possible. Of course, people are often not assured by such claims, and scientists avoid saying anything is impossible, but it’s no more likely that a reactor will go up in a mushroom cloud than it is that the natural uranium in the earth’s crust will explode. (Note that many natural fission reactors have been active in the earth’s history.)

            The design of nuclear explosives required careful engineering. You need highly enriched fuel in the range of 90% fissile isotopes (U-235 or Pu-239), and you need enough to reach critical mass assembled into a homogenous and dense sphere. But that’s not enough, because as you assemble enough to reach critical mass, the energy of the fissions will push the material apart rendering it non-critical, and causing the reaction to fizzle out. You have to use TNT or dynamite to force the material together rapidly so it goes super-critical and stays that way long enough for an exponential chain reaction.

            The fuel in a power reactor can be natural uranium, or it may be enriched to about 3% U-235, and it is dispersed throughout the reactor with a density far too low to be able to explode. Criticality in a power reactor is reached by the use of a moderator and a suitable geometry, and is a fragile condition that is destroyed by any kind of perturbation, and there is no possibility to increase the reaction rate to explosive levels given the raw materials available.

            The danger is in the loss of coolant, because even if the chain reaction stops (as it did in Fukushima), the used fuel contains highly radioactive fission fragments that continue to generate heat. Without cooling, this will result in the worst-case accident for a nuclear reactor: a meltdown. There may be steam or hydrogen explosions which help to disperse radioactivity, but there really is no way to generate a nuclear explosion, and so the possibility of far greater number of deaths is not there. In Chernobyl, pretty much everything that could go wrong did: it was a complete meltdown of the fuel, ignition of the combustible graphite moderator, in a reactor that was not even in a hard containment vessel. It represents a nuclear accident about as bad as it gets, particularly since modern power reactors all use non-combustible water as the moderator.

            The possibility of a meltdown of course was well-known from the start, and popularized by Jane Fonda in the movie The China Syndrome. It was described as the worst-case scenario, where the heat of the core would burn through the containment and the earth and come out in china. The China syndrome was obviously exaggeration, but it indicates that even Jane Fonda and the wing-nut movie advisors realized that a meltdown is as bad as it gets.

        • Peter Roe

          You are spouting the usual nuclear industry nonsense – that nuclear accidents kill relatively small numbers of people – immediately. You conveniently forget that 99% of the damage will be long term, in the form of cancer deaths, lives shortened through other internal damage, genetic abnormalities for generations, all of which will affect not only those who lived near the reactors, but anyone who breathes contaminated air or eats contaminated food for decades to come (which includes in particular the inhabitants of the West coast of the US.).

          The true cost of Chernobyl is becoming apparent now, as will the full cost of Fukushima in years to come.

          “It was grim. We went from hospital to hospital and from one contaminated village to another. We found deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards, pitifully sick children in the homes, adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos, fetuses without thighs or fingers and villagers who told us that every member of their family was sick…”

          Journalist John Vidal speaking in 2011 following a visit to the area surrounding Chernobyl.

          The MSM has successfully downplayed the real extent of the dangers still presented by Fukushima, but that doesn’t alter the reality:

        • Peter Roe
          • huge exagggeration.
            even in tchernobyl where kids were drinking contaminated milk, it was much less and much slower.

            it is the usual manipulation by the priest of fear.

            even with false linear law, and people standing up outside during the accident, the mortality around fukushima have been estimated to few hundred…

            around tchernobyl, where much more have been disseminated, the few thousands thyroid cancer have been caused by food contamination, because the authorities were absent during the sovietic system collapse.

            anyway it is funny, like on LENR, to see so many erroneous facts published in magasine, and written on wikipedia.

            ps: the data are public, I mean the real. same as LENR.

        • kemo sabe

          No, I’m not talking about immediate deaths only, and I’m not spouting industry propaganda. The information comes from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, and other members of the Chernobyl Forum that have studied both long and short term effects of the Chernobyl disaster.

          Radiation is uncommonly easy to measure (and identify) at trace levels far below toxic, and the approximate dose received between 1986 and 2005 by 500,000 recovery workers was around 120 mSv. Most of the nearby civilians received about 10 mSv, with the evacuees receiving as much as 30 mSv.

          By way of comparison, background is about 2 mSv per year (40 mSv over the 20 years), the equivalent whole body dose from a barium enema is 15 mSv, and from a neonatal abdominal CT scan about 20 mSv. A smoker is exposed to a radiation equivalent to whole body dose of 10 to 30 mSv per year. So, smokers have been exposed to much more radiation (mostly Po-210) than even the recovery workers.

          Epidemiology is much more difficult of course, but the best estimates suggest 4000 to 5000 premature deaths resulting from the accident, which is about as many as die from ~GW coal plants over 20 years in North America, and far fewer than die from GW coal plants over that period in China.

          And contrary to the vague anecdotal observations of a lazy journalist with an agenda, the scientific findings do not suggest genetic effects from Chernobyl. Major studies involving patients who have received significant radiation therapy, and their offspring, have not found genetic effects. In extensive studies of children exposed to, or born to those exposed to the atomic bombings in Japan, no genetic effects have been found. The search for genetic effects in Belarus and Ukraine, which had the highest contamination from Chernobyl, came up empty. Some studies of mini satellite mutations suggest an increase in children from Chernobyl areas, but those studies used control children in the UK, not exactly a directly comparable group.

          The UNSCEAR summary includes: “Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, and some indication of an increased leukaemia and cataract incidence among the workers, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the exposed populations. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to the actual radiation doses.”

          And the Chernobyl forum adds: ” … The designation of the affected population as “victims” rather than “survivors” has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity.”

          So, the fear-mongering you are endorsing is part of the problem.

          The last link you give about thyroid problems in California is classic fear-mongering. It is written by the innumerate for the innumerate, and makes no sense at all.

          First of all, the headline screams “Almost third … newborns hit with thyroid problems”. Then, when you read the article, you find that the number of congenital hypothyroid cases “skyrocketed”, increasing by 16 percent from March 17 to Dec 31, 2011. But, what they don’t say is that the incidence of CH is 1:4000, so if it increases by 16 percent, that would make it 1.16:4000. How do you get almost a third from that? Then there is the question of what time intervals they used to measure the rate on March 17, and on Dec 31. There are only a few CH births per week in California, so even monthly fluctuations would be in the range of 30%. It would be easy to find a month (Dec, say) where the fluctuation was suitably up for the point they wanted to make. In any case, they don’t reveal what they mean by the 16% increase, and so with small numbers like this, it is meaningless.

          They also say that between March 17 and June 30, the hyperthyroidism rate among newborns increased by 28%. But the incidence of neonatal hyperthyroidism is 1:50,000. That means over that entire period, there might have been 2 or 3 cases in California. Funny that they didn’t compare the rate to Dec 31 this time; I’m guessing you don’t see an increase in that case. There is simple no way to extract a meaningful trend from any of these numbers. As a science writer, you oughta know that.

          And what about the I-131 levels? They say 200 times normal, but don’t mention that I-131 is not present in nature, and whatever is normally observed is background from medical uses. The measured levels were something like a few pCi/L in milk or water, some 5000 times below the FDA derived intervention level. (The EPA max contamination level is 3 pCi/L, but that refers to acceptable continuing emissions; i.e. lifetime exposure at that level is considered safe.)

          Note that emission from a banana is about 400 pCi from the K-40, and that whole body emission due to the same isotope is 120,000 pCi. Of course, I-121 collects in the thyroid, and that makes it more dangerous, but still, it is patently absurd to think a few pCi/L for a few weeks can have any measurable health effect.


          It’s interesting that you reject the warnings of climate change even though they represent an almost unanimous consensus among climate scientists, and embrace the fear-mongering of a few unqualified writers about nuclear energy. I wonder what criteria you use to decide who to believe, other than what you want to believe.

          • Bob

            Hey kemo sabe,
            Thanks for taking the time to post all that.
            It keeps things in perspective.

  • Sanjeev

    E-Cat: Tested, Tried and True

    Mentions one Physicist who test it and also mentions 10 MW Ecats and 10KW home units. (probably leaked but I’m not sure). Can be a joke too…

    • Sanjeev

      Looks like the joke option is ruled out, he has a website and the info is older than 1st April.

    • FastBuck

      In the picture, is Rossi standing in a shipping container? The floor and ceiling appear to be sloped, like the hull of a ship. Or perhaps photo was taken with a fish-eye lens.

      • artefact

        Yes, it is a 1MW warm-ecat -> shippingcontainer with 10KW e-catmodules inside.

  • Sanjeev

    He talks about an intended collaborative project to establish a partly public ECAT power plant in Switzerland (In German)

  • artefact

    Have a look at Lindas post at the last topic. She suggestes that Rossi came to his e-cat invention through his former petrol dragen research. He used the Bergius process which uses nickel and hydrogen at 400C.
    That was what I thought since the early days. I just think I never mentioned it.
    Rossis story how he discovered the e-cat changed after some month so I concluded that he did not want to tell the real story to not tell too much.
    What would his secret catalyst be if the abouve is true? The catalyst of the Bergius process is NI. The catalyst of Rossis e-cat is hydrocarbon (or sodium or potassium which are often stored in the oil)?

    • As Celani’s publications etc. show, the surface microstructure is rather easily modified by high temperature conditions which can be both a benefit and a problem. Maybe Rossi’s catalyst is some chemical which somehow automatically recreates the correct surface microstructure. In that case finding the catalyst is not a nuclear but a chemical problem.
      The set of possible catalysts is large but finite. For example all substances which decay at high temperature used in the reactor are out of the question. This rules out most if not all organic substances, for example. The search space can still be quite large if one considers element mixtures and their correct rationing. AR has said that he made thousands of experiments. If literally true, it’s an order of magnitude more than what Storms has done.

      • georgehants

        If shown genuine, as I have said thousands of real scientists i.e. unqualified clever ordinary guys will in their sheds find the answer very quickly.

    • robyn wyrick

      I don’t have any way to verify Linda’s proposition, but I think she’s awesome for coming up with it. A clever bit of sleuthing there, I think.

      • NJT

        Yes indeed, she may just be on the correct trail with her hypothesis…

  • georgehants

    Response from Mr Rossi, as I think he has said before but very sad for me.
    Andrea Rossi
    April 2nd, 2013 at 4:20 PM
    Dear Joe:
    2- We do not make new physics
    Warm Regards,

    • Peter Roe

      I think he’s just trying to avoid unneccessarily antagonising the priesthood of old physics, just as he tries not to frighten the oil and gas people too much by claiming a maximum COP of 6. The truth will out anyway when CF is routinely generating electricity.

      • Luca Salvarani

        Dear georgehants

        Rossi has said on MANY TIMES (expecially in italian), I remember at least 5, that e-cat technology is perfectly consistent with current physics… I think that we can’t fully unsertand this because we don’t know pretty much about his technology… but I absolutely trust him.
        I don’t care about theoretical physics… I care about energy costs, availability, decentralized production, the environmental benefits ecc… and what these can determine in the real world! A great great revolution! (Sorry I’m a CFO, non a scientist..)

        • georgehants

          Luca, Point taken about the Cold Fusion but I am also a science enthusiast and love to see any “new science” to move knowledge forward.
          But I think it is exciting times for us all.

      • georgehants

        Agreed, for me as long as Rossi et al in very quick time (if genuine) are praised and thanked by the scientific community and Press and at least one Nobel Prize is awarded within two years then everything is in it’s place.
        Any other behavior by the establishment will show their true colours.

    • lcd

      The difference between new physics and old physics is not crystal clear I. E Higgs boson.

      • Peter Roe

        Whenever it becomes necessary to invent kludges (such as Eistein’s ‘cosmological constant’, Higgs boson, dark matter, dark energy, FTL expansion of the universe etc.) to make observations fit a theoretical framework – it may be time to have another look at the framework. The same may apply for observations arising from Rossi e-cats, Brillouin, Nanospire, GEC, Defkalion et al., but there seems to be precious little interest in doing so within establishment physics (= ‘old physics’).

    • Mannstein

      Rossi may be telling the truth when he states “We do not make new physics”. If Prof. Hagelstein’s or Widom and Larson’s theories are proven correct based on experimental evidence then indeed no new physics is involved.

  • Peter Roe

    Hansen is a long-time AGW evangelist who blames virtually every unusual climate event on CO2 and has been party to many dubious pronouncements and manipulations of data in the past. He either coined or made ‘popular’ the propaganda phrase ‘climate denier’ to describe anyone who disagrees with his position, and his views on nuclear power are utterly skewed by his agenda. It seems that the true nature of the AGW scare as a tool for control and taxation, and a vehicle for promotion of nuclear fission becomes clearer daily.

    • robyn wyrick

      I’m a AGW-theory supporter, but I agree with Peter, the issue is being heavily influenced by the Nuclear Industry proponents.

  • This article raise interesting question.
    Beside the exaggeration that I denounce elsewhere here, it shows the irrationality that is well known since long. Nothing new, and those fact are as evident as “LENR is real since 1991”.

    It is clear that LENR, even if much harder to control than what it seems from Defkalion, Rossi,Celani,Piantelli and Brillouin, will solve the problem of energy and pollution, plus the climate problem (whatever is your position on climate, problems will be solved because LENR will cancel CO2 production and cancel need for subsidies, solar panel, wind turbines, expensive energy savings, and taxes).

    The problem is that beside those claimed problems, the reality is that people are exploiting those ideas to get power, make money, survive in the business, social or politic sphere, to push their ideas and theories, and protect their interests.

    LENR will reduce the power of all NGO working on climate and pollution.
    It will kill all renewable industry, carbon capture.
    It will kill climate research as we know today (it will move to simple climatic forecast, not to policy drivers as today), kill carbon capture research, solar panel research, bio-fuels research…
    It will kill all business, advisers, around Climate, around sustainable development, CO2, pollution…
    It will kill bio-fuels and lower the cost of crops…
    It will kill all the ideology of peak-energy, of Malthusian fears, and the billion funded industry of fear and panic.

    LENR will save much money for the masses, but will kill a long list of billions funded NGO, of trillion funded businesses and researches…

    It will be beneficial globally, very beneficial, but it will be so costly for a minority of influential lobbies, that those few rich losers will use all their cash to kill LENR, to remove all it’s intrinsic qualities (locality, simplicity, low cost, safety) to block it, will use all their resources, financial , politic, sociological, ideological, to block LENR in a corner where it let rooms for those lobbies to pump the cash and the brain from the masses.

    We have a vision of lobbies which is absolutely obsolete, 40 years old, from the 70s.
    Modern lobbies, are very sympathetic today, like the lobbies of the 60s where sympathetic in the 60s. Nobody dare to name them as parasitic lobbies, and the source of the Western decadence in economics and mindset…

    The war will be bloody and LENR may loose. At least in the western world, and for 20 years to come.

    • robyn wyrick

      I respect your point about the number of people and organizations who have a stake in the the current crises.

      But I am an optimist about the shakeout.

      I think the NGOs and climate researchers working on Climate Change will still have their hands full for a good while, since the green house gasses *already* in the atmosphere are currently predicted to cause major changes that will need to be tracked and managed.

      I think solar panel research, bio-fuels and other renewables, will have a *very* long and healthy life. There isn’t all that much money in them yet, and there’s actually huge benefits that SPV can provide that even a solid LENR economy doesn’t.

      The Malthusian fears… well, I don’t know. 🙂

      While not explicitly mentioned in your post, I think the major reaction will be from the Coal, Gas, and Oil companies. But frankly, I think their worst mischief has been the past 100 years, not the future 100.

    • Karl

      The fight for lenr has been dirty and will continue to be – I agree. But I can not see that it will not be lost on the contrary it is a matter of time. I imagine there are just a question of finding the right player. Perhaps Rossi already found one with enough power to start to crack the egg. The forerunners will have such a great advantage.

    • Hal

      +1 🙁

  • georgehants

    Just to compare —
    The people in the World who will be happy if Mr. Rossi has a genuine high output device.
    The only exceptions —
    Those making money by capitalistic reliance on coal, oil, etc.
    Almost all scientists who will be made to look very foolish after there inane denials of clear Evidence.
    Most scientists working in such things as nuclear power, hot fusion etc.
    Flat Earth’ers
    Unpleasant over sceptics.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Now remember George. History will show that they weren’t overwrought with envy after being displaced from their pedestals. They were just “being responsible”.

      • robyn wyrick

        AND THAT’S FINE!

        With respect, considering the range of scientific endeavors, I think *very* few scientists are actually at fault here.

        The initial discrediting of Cold Fusion was so complete that they even resurrected Albert Einstein to pile on.

        (It’s actually a darling little film.)

        And on this site, even people who are convinced that CF is real – and who can point to peer reviewed papers (not merely claims) supporting the anomalous heat effect or transmutation – even with all this, we don’t have any working, full-scale models.

        (I say that advisedly, because we *might* have them, Rossi claims to have them, but they’re not public.)

        So, it’s fine that scientists have remained skeptical. There are papers on any number of things that turn out to be false on further examination – so the fact that CF research has a high barrier is not surprising.

        I think the evidence is mounting to the point it will shortly be undeniable, even to skeptics. And when that happens, they can say, “well, damn, that’s surprising, and great.”

        There are serious injustices in this story, not the least, injustices to Pons and Fleischmann, or heck, the rest of humanity.

        But to err is human, and to correct is just good science.

        • georgehants

          robyn, if there is the slightest Evidence for a phenomenon, then anybody who deny’s instead of pushing for immediate unbiased Research to clarify the position is no scientist.
          Only a fool denies Evidence or another model of any kind without pursuing the Truth.
          This does not exclude fair and sensible scepticism that everybody should have.

          • Richard Wilson

            I couldn’t agree more with your comment. Responsible science proceeds to test new ideas and concepts not simply deny their existence. Worse still is MIT and Cal Tech who to protect their own turf issued false statements concerning the technology. They undeniably put back the technology 20 years. Their sneers and jeers should be turned against the credibility of their own work.

          • NJT


          • robyn wyrick

            “if there is the slightest Evidence for a phenomenon, then anybody who deny’s instead of pushing for immediate unbiased Research to clarify the position is no scientist. Only a fool”

            I don’t know how that can be true. Frequently slight evidence is at odds with a preponderance of other evidence, sometimes a wild preponderance.

            I think the Fleischmann/Pons “anomalous heat effect” is was a very good example. They described something that was slight evidence (one test which they could not reproduce, and most others reported not being able to reproduce). Moreover, it seemed to stand in direct violation of the known physical models.

            Now, I’m not saying that P&F should have been treated as they were, or that there no shady deals in that, but the vast majority of scientists would seem to be fairly honest to say “that doesn’t add up.”

            That’s the whole point about a revolutionary report like theirs (and Rossi’s). It contradicts the main models that our understanding works from, and so every time there is “slight” evidence contradicting it, it seems reasonable that average scientists would not put much stake in it.


          • georgehants

            robyn, you say —
            “but the vast majority of scientists would seem to be fairly honest to say “that doesn’t add up.””

            Could I direct you to the present day where Cold Fusion is still denied almost universally by science and scientists, journals and the administration.

            You say —–
            “Moreover, it seemed to stand in direct violation of the known physical models.”

            Could you explain to me why that would be the slightest excuse to deny something and not push for more Research.
            Are we not dealing here with grown-up scientists, you seem to be describing childish, incompetent people unable to go beyond “known physical models” or the clearly incompetent abusive denials spoken by those unqualified to repeat the work of P&F.

            You say —
            “That’s the whole point about a revolutionary report like theirs (and Rossi’s). It contradicts the main models that our understanding works from, and so every time there is “slight” evidence contradicting it, it seems reasonable that average scientists would not put much stake in it.”

            I think you have agreed with my analysis above and confirmed the terrible incompetent abilities of the scientists involved.
            To this day with Cold Fusion confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt not only “average” but supposedly elite members of the fraternity are apparently unable to comprehend that science is not there to deny and debunk everything they do not understand, but to intelligently push for more Research to find the Truth of a situation.

          • robyn wyrick

            George, please don’t get me wrong: I think CF/LENR is real – and by all means, worth devoting solid research dollars against.

            However, while not being a physicist or chemist, from what I can read, the evidence for Cold Fusion comes down to two things:

            1 – anomalous heat
            2 – the transmutation of elements

            The “Toyota replicates Mitsubishi transmutation” story last year was the largest proof yet for me about Cold Fusion (and not another really cool effect.)


            But I don’t see Toyota shouting it from the rooftops. The paper appears to have been presented and then… nothing. I use this example all the time, but it would sure as hell help if I could point to a Toyota website with the paper. Which I can’t. So that’s weird to me.

            Other reports on transmutation seem much less solid, like Rossi’s claim of Nickle to Copper. I have not read Celani claim it, not MFMP, and if it was solid, I would have expected it.

            I still do, but I can understand skepticism.

            As for anomalous heat, I think Celani demonstrated that. But reading Bob’s work with MFMP, there seems to be doubt that they have replicated it.

            So, I follow this story pretty closely, and even for me, I get bugged out by some of the reports (videos online – even on this site – that show an energy arc with people claiming it to be CF plasma.)

            That’s really weak. It’s experimental, which is cool, but it’s not the most solid evidence in the world to base a revolution on against the major physical models of matter.

            So that’s what I mean by “slight”. The evidence is promising, but those unconvinced scientists might still be very good scientists.

            We’ll see what 2013 holds, of course.


          • georgehants

            robyn, good discussion, thank you.

        • StefanBanev

          Once research is hopeless to make $$ it goes public otherwise it would be quite stupid to do so; it still possible that stupid people may stumble upon some breakthrough but it is getting highly improbable to “stumble” again & again consistently – it is why the word “luck” is so popular excuse for many… Anyway, if LENR tech has potential to be a source of energy it will prevail, at this point any conspiracy excuses are getting silly…

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      The 1989 public relations blitz against cold fusion was not an accident, it was brilliantly constructed and effective for 25 years. It could happen again!

      • georgehants

        Bernie, is it not amazing that with a World population of say 7 billion that would be happy to see Cold Fusion succeed, such a miniscule percentage of manipulative science administrators and energy capitalists etc. can sway the opinions of so many so called intelligent scientists into denial and debunking to such an extent that almost none of the World is aware of the Cold Fusion breakthroughs.

        • Gerrit

          Never was so much withheld to so many by so few

          • Karl


        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          I am afraid the next brilliant negative LENR blitz will be safety related. “We don’t know how it works so it is unsafe”.

          • Peter Roe

            +1. It’s OK for the military and power companies to use CF, but it’s not safe for the oiks. “You can’t play with matches, children, they’re very dangerous and only for grown-ups.”

  • georgehants

    Smart Planet
    The ‘unstoppable’ renewable grid
    On that note, I am looking forward to covering the first Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy conference in San Francisco two weeks from now. The speaker lineup is excellent, and includes several thought-leaders whose work I have followed for years, including Lancaster, Calif., mayor Rex Parris, who I profiled last June. (Under Parris’ leadership, Lancaster recently became the first city in the nation to require that all new residential developments come equipped with at least 1 kW of solar PV per home.)
    It should be a fascinating opportunity to see how renewably powered grids are taking shape in the United States and elsewhere. If you are planning to be there, please say hello.

    • Roger Bird

      I wonder how Lancaster is doing, particularly with new home buying. Fiddling with the market like that can have unforeseen consequences.

  • artefact
  • robyn wyrick

    Interesting article (not LENR, though).

    • robyn wyrick

      Also this

      It’s a cool time to be alive.

      • artefact

        From the text:
        “In their experiments, they found that ionic wind produces 110 newtons of thrust per kilowatt, compared with a jet engine’s 2 newtons per kilowatt”

        Sounds good.

        ..Powered by LENR soon 🙂

    • Peter Roe

      Hydrogen production from xylose certainly makes rather more sense than drying the biomass, shipping it to a power station, then burning it to produce a relatively tiny amount of electrical power.

  • georgehants

    US starts building first nuclear reactors in 30 years|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment

    • Roger Bird

      Good, except LENR will be blowing people’s minds before they finish the nuke mentioned in the article. It will become near obsolete before it is finished.

    • dzejk

      Why start with new nuclear pp if they have working ecat in military labs?

      • Omega Z


      • NJT

        Corrupt politics at work!

  • Omega Z

    Imagine an Earthquake @ Magnitude 8 or 9+ that can ring Church bells a 1000 miles from it’s epicenter & Changed the coarse of a massive river.

    In the Heart of the Worlds Bread Basket.

    That could trigger several Fukushima disasters with minimal backup systems.(Couple Days at most)

    Imagine a World thrown into Mass Food Shortages & Starvation. A World in total disarray.

    It’s not IF this can happen. It’s When.
    Rossi should hurry it up. There may not be a World to Save.

    Three Mile Island
    ??????? Each Progressively Worse.

    Note: On any given day, the World only has about a 90 day food reserve. Any Major disruptions will be felt almost immediately. World Wide. If Any Country was to hoard food, Could be considered cause for War.

    Just Something to Consider…

    • Chris Hansen

      I shouldn’t consider Fukushima worse than Tchernobyl. In Tchernobyl, radiactive cloud swept over all Europe, and thyroid cancers and other thyroid malfunctions are the general rule here.

      • Omega Z

        Fukushima has been downplayed.

        Contamination has been detected in milk all across the U.S.
        Also some levels are high enough in the Western part of the U.S. to be of health concern, Especially for the very young with 28% increased risk of certain cancers.

        Mostly the U.S. Media glosses over it, but those who dig deeper know it’s worse then we’re lead to believe publicly. But then, Not much you can do about already spilled milk except try to prevent it from happening again.

      • John

        stochastic risk, it takes time to manifest

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Admin: Good subject good article, thanks.