Free Energy Could Destroy the Planet — The Most Powerful Argument Against LENR?

I’d like to thank Fortyniner for sharing the following article which I believe may turn out to contain the most potent argument against the proliferation of LENR technology in the long run.

Mike Adams, founding editor of Natural News writes an article titled “Real global warming could be unleashed by a hidden technology most people don’t even know exists.” The interesting thing about this article is that Adams is not an LENR sceptic, nor a disbeliever in ‘free energy’. He mentions being a fan of cold fusion proponent Eugene Mallove, and being a personal friend of free energy proponent Brian O’Leary. Adams seems to take seriously the possibility of free or very cheap energy becoming available.

His argument is that we should put the clamps on it — and one reason he states is this:

“If free energy technology were to be developed and openly shared with the world, it would very rapidly lead to runaway global warming. I don’t mean by emitting greenhouse gasses because obviously such devices don’t burn fossil fuels. What I mean is literal, actual WARMING: the production of heat that’s released into the atmosphere. Joules and BTUs, in other words.”

Adams argues that the explosion in economic and technological activity that free energy would unleash on the planet would vastly increase the amount of heat being pumped into the atmosphere. Desalination plants, electric vehicles, massive economic development, etc., all powered by a free energy source would “[raise] the temperature of the entire planet and [cause] global warming from a whole new perspective.”

He mentions that free energy availability would curtail efforts for energy efficiency (why limit the use of something if it is free?), and take away any of the limits on human activity that currently expensive energy places on us.

His bottom line is that humans cannot be trusted with free energy, that they would squander it and ruin the planet in the process. He states that while he believes that eventually free energy should be made public — when humanity has ‘grown up a little’:

We would all be wise to keep this technology carefully reserved and out of the hands of the imbecilic masses until the day comes when we can apply these incredible gifts of the universe with wisdom and maturity.

Yesterday I wrote about the report published The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) urging nations to find low-carbon technologies that could help save us from climate catastrophe, and how LENR seems to fit the bill. I wonder what a similar panel might be writing about in a few years time if LENR technology becomes universally recognized as being a viable and inexpensive energy source.

The theoretical basis of global warming currently rests on the mechanism of greenhouse gasses (e.g. carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane) which trap heat in the atmosphere, rather than letting it radiate out into space. If you drastically reduce the production of of man-made greenhouse gases, does the threat of global warming go away? I wonder if theoreticians might at some point modify their models as they see that much more energy is being generated by widely available and inexpensive technologies.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Adams’ perspective in this article became a commonly held one by people who are concerned about the effects that
abundant and cheap energy might have.

I think the truth is a technology like LENR does have the potential to change human activity across the globe in profound ways and alter our notion of civilization as we currently know it. But this has happened throughout human history. Our world has been transformed over and over by the introduction of new technologies such as electricity, automobiles, aviation, and the internet.

I don’t think we can, or should, try to stop the introduction of a powerful technology which has so many potential benefits. Andrea Rossi is fond of saying these days in mercatu veritas — in the market there is truth — in other words it is the market (the interaction between producers and consumers) that will sort out the place of his technology. If Mike Adams’ philosophy were to prevail, it would not be the market, but a certain class of decision makers, who would determine whether we are mature enough to handle a technology like LENR.

  • Frost*

    The same technology could be used to take heat out of the atmosphere so whats the problem here?

    Nothing more than scaremongering!

    • Daniel Maris

      My physics isn’t that good- doesn’t all energy dissipate as heat eventually and won’t your coolers be using energy which dissipates as heat?

      However, if LENR is used to remove carbon from the atmosphere, that might have a balancing effect I would think.

  • Frost*

    The same technology could be used to take heat out of the atmosphere so whats the problem here?

    Nothing more than scaremongering!

  • Daniel Maris

    1. It won’t be free, not by a long mark. It will just be very cheap.

    2. It won’t be creating the risk of additional heating through carbon emissions.

    3. It will be clean

  • Leonard Weinstein

    First, LENR or any other form of energy production would never be free or even extremely cheap. It could be somewhat less expensive as present energy sources, but its main advantage would not be a hugely lower price, it would be the energy security, independence from the grid, and availability in emergencies. Also, at some point, Carbon based fuels will become less available, so some transition is necessary to a form of nuclear power of some sort. LENR has the advantage of being separate from a grid (compared to other nuclear power sources), so may be the best choice in that respect. The amount of total power produced by human activity is truly small compared to solar input, and even other natural processes (volcanic, and conduction from the interior of Earth). There is no reasonable path that would result in such large waste by all that could become a major factor of energy production compared to these. The idea of a free and limitless source of energy and total abuse of this to a dangerous level is nonsense.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    First, LENR or any other form of energy production would never be free or even extremely cheap. It could be somewhat less expensive as present energy sources, but its main advantage would not be a hugely lower price, it would be the energy security, independence from the grid, and availability in emergencies. Also, at some point, Carbon based fuels will become less available, so some transition is necessary to a form of nuclear power of some sort. LENR has the advantage of being separate from a grid (compared to other nuclear power sources), so may be the best choice in that respect. The amount of total power produced by human activity is truly small compared to solar input, and even other natural processes (volcanic, and conduction from the interior of Earth). There is no reasonable path that would result in such large waste by all that could become a major factor of energy production compared to these. The idea of a free and limitless source of energy and total abuse of this to a dangerous level is nonsense.

  • Warthog

    This meme is a very old one among the “deep green” types. With them, anything other than a rapid and drastic reduction of the human population is useless. And “free energy” is especially bad……”like giving an infant a machine gun.” I think I first heard this notion back in the 1970’s.

  • Warthog

    This meme is a very old one among the “deep green” types. With them, anything other than a rapid and drastic reduction of the human population is useless. And “free energy” is especially bad……”like giving an infant a machine gun.” I think I first heard this notion back in the 1970’s.

  • Ophelia Rump
    • Omega Z

      Someone is stock piling.

  • Ophelia Rump
    • Omega Z

      Someone is stock piling.

  • Karl

    To me this is just a sign that a real break trough is eminent. It can’t be stopped irrespective of the silly arguments claimed in the article.

  • Karl

    To me this is just a sign that a real break trough is eminent. It can’t be stopped irrespective of the silly arguments claimed in the article.

  • JDM

    I guess Mr. Adams does not believe that the earth can radiate energy into space. I wonder how we can even communicate with those satellites?

  • JDM

    I guess Mr. Adams does not believe that the earth can radiate energy into space. I wonder how we can even communicate with those satellites?

  • Zapece

    Free energy would also allow us to construct novel heat dissipation devices for example say capture and bring (or create) a small asteroid into orbit which dangles tethers down into the atmosphere like a jellyfish heat moves up the tethers and dissipates it in to the cold of space, asteroid orbit is corrected by gas it can suck up through one of the tethers.

  • builditnow

    One possibility is we become a space traveling people and people will leave the earth in droves to explore new frontiers. A space craft could collect sufficient hydrogen from the dust, solar wind to provide all it’s power and could be self sustaining. It’s likely we will ruin Mars by converting it into a suitable habitat for ourselves, and the asteroid belt for mining could be ruined. Perhaps we would then ruin the Oort cloud, but, why stick around the sun at that point, let’s plan on ruining some new planets around other stars. Will the galactic police pull us into line? In the meantime, however, we could also really mess up the earth. Direct heating might make a difference, someone else will have to do the math on that.

    • Billy Jackson

      … how exactly are we going to ruin mars?

      It has no breathable atmosphere.
      It has no free flowing water not locked up in ice below the surface…
      It has no appreciable life that we have found yet.
      its a large, lifeless, dead planet wracked by storms… and you’re proposing we are going to somehow ruin it by transforming it into something more usable..???

      your whole post is about we should touch nothing because we might change it.. that’s life, its a resource for us to use to IMPROVE ourselves as a species. next time your out swimming do us all the favor after you jump in. don’t move your arms and feet around so much you might disturb the water and ruin the lake for the rest of us.

      • bitplayer

        “Red Mars” by Kim Stanley Robinson outlines the ideological position for not terra-forming Mars; that faction loses.

  • builditnow

    One possibility is we become a space traveling people and people will leave the earth in droves to explore new frontiers. A space craft could collect sufficient hydrogen from the dust, solar wind to provide all it’s power and could be self sustaining. It’s likely we will ruin Mars by converting it into a suitable habitat for ourselves, and the asteroid belt for mining could be ruined. Perhaps we would then ruin the Oort cloud, but, why stick around the sun at that point, let’s plan on ruining some new planets around other stars. Will the galactic police pull us into line? In the meantime, however, we could also really mess up the earth. Direct heating might make a difference, someone else will have to do the math on that.

    • Billy Jackson

      … how exactly are we going to ruin mars?

      It has no breathable atmosphere.
      It has no free flowing water not locked up in ice below the surface…
      It has no appreciable life that we have found yet.
      its a large, lifeless, dead planet wracked by storms… and you’re proposing we are going to somehow ruin it by transforming it into something more usable..???

      your whole post is about we should touch nothing because we might change it.. that’s life, its a resource for us to use to IMPROVE ourselves as a species. next time your out swimming do us all the favor after you jump in. don’t move your arms and feet around so much you might disturb the water and ruin the lake for the rest of us.

      • Wayne M.

        William Jackson,

        After the please drown innuendo, I cannot check off the box:

        “works and plays well with others”

        You will have to repeat a grade.

        • Billy Jackson

          My apologies Wayne. unfortunately i tend to have a bad reaction to stupidity.. i think i am allergic 🙂

  • friendlyprogrammer

    The Earth is hit by the Sun’s energy flux F = 1400 Joules/s/m2. We call this quantity the “solar constant”, as this value averaged over each year is constant within better than 1% over time.

    Imagine producing enough heat to walk outside your house without the sun.

    Global Warming has harbingers of doom at every turn. I agree we might have a small effect on GW, the idea that it will be our doom is silly. If anything we will be able to apply cheap energy to helping the environment.

    Desalination may release heat, but we will also be growing carbon in the forms of people, animals, and plants from that water, which is temporary carbon storage if nothing else.

    I do agree that abuse will befall cheap energy, but that will be initially and over time we can look at harder hit parts of the globe. We know GW is occurring no matter what.

    Perhaps energy solutions like growing algae and burying it deep in the earth to prevent the carbon from releasing into the atmosphere or convert carbon via chemistry.

    Let’s not forget… 600 million polluting smog vehicles are currently adding to the carbon mess. LENR has the potential to remove 99.9% of those in favour of clean air machines that output no pollution. Whoopee!

    If energy is cheap enough we can create projects that will help our planet. Automate boats and drones that pick up pollution, etc.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Adams hasn’t done the sums. The amount of heat from LENR would not be significant compared to natural sources and increasing use of energy offset by reducing CO2.

  • malkom700

    Since we live in a world impotent, it really can happen to complications caused by the LENR we can not handle. In this sense, the author may be right.

  • malkom700

    Since we live in a world impotent, it really can happen to complications caused by the LENR we can not handle. In this sense, the author may be right.

  • optiongeek

    Utter rubbish. The standard of living since recorded time is almost precisely correlated with the price of energy. Lowering the cost of energy will increase the standard of living for all and enable vast new capabilities and provide the resources and technology to engineer massive undertakings, such as terraforming new planets and protecting our own. Anything or anyone that interferes with the ability to reduce the price of energy is the real culprit here.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Tight bedsheets cause ingrown toenail.

  • Facepalm
  • Zdzisław

    Filozowia Pana Mike Adas`a pozwala zauważyć że jest na poziomie angielskich robotnków z XIX wieku- kiedy obużeni wprowadzaniem maszyn do przemysłu (w tym maszyn do szycia) podjeli akcję niszczenia tych maszyn w obawie że utracą pracę .
    Jeśli ten Pan dopracował się jakiegoś uznania w środowisku naukowym i opiniotwórczym to tym artykólem obnażył swoje jestetwo i to świadczy o tym że to dyletant.

  • Philip James

    Before I treated an article like this with any seriousness, I’d do an energy use and dissipation analysis. How much of our current activity (absent carbon production and greenhouse gas effects) is “warming” per se? What would it be if you have 10, 100, or 1000x the activity.

    I’d venture to guess little at all.

    I saw an article the other day (might have even been linked from here) that if you collected the sunlight from some tiny fraction of the desert in northern Africa and convert it at current efficiencies to electricity (and could of course export it at no energy loss) it would be enough for current energy needs. Though the article was not specific I took that to mean gasoline for cars, etc. as well.

    So, 1000x that would be a larger patch of a swath of “extra” sunlight on the northern Sahara. Of course, heat production at some point finds a limit, but I don’t think we are anywhere near that or should be worried enough to use LENR or other novel tech to get out of our current dire circumstances.

    Of course, I don’t know how accurate the article is, as one can’t believe EVERYTHING one reads on the internet… except here of course!

  • Philip James

    Before I treated an article like this with any seriousness, I’d do an energy use and dissipation analysis. How much of our current activity (absent carbon production and greenhouse gas effects) is “warming” per se? What would it be if you have 10, 100, or 1000x the activity.

    I’d venture to guess little at all.

    I saw an article the other day (might have even been linked from here) that if you collected the sunlight from some tiny fraction of the desert in northern Africa and convert it at current efficiencies to electricity (and could of course export it at no energy loss) it would be enough for current energy needs. Though the article was not specific I took that to mean gasoline for cars, etc. as well.

    So, 1000x that would be a larger patch of a swath of “extra” sunlight on the northern Sahara. Of course, heat production at some point finds a limit, but I don’t think we are anywhere near that or should be worried enough to use LENR or other novel tech to get out of our current dire circumstances.

    Of course, I don’t know how accurate the article is, as one can’t believe EVERYTHING one reads on the internet… except here of course!

  • Billy Jackson

    Hmmm I agree that energy will never be truly free in a capital sense. Economic Cost, Regulations, and Social factors at this point in our history has proven if someone can profit they will do so. I do not see within our foreseeable future the rest being a problem.

    roughly 20,000 years ago Manhattan was under 1 mile of ice from glaciers.. imagine that if you can.. find the tallest skyscraper in new york.. triple its size and you will get an idea of how high that is….. fact of life.. the planet will change, we will adapt, people will die from changes… the only thing that is guaranteed is change will happen.

    We have a small window in the time frame of the planet, its literally a blink.. to get ourselves sorted out and prepared to survive the next violent change. be it weather that does not let us grow crops. or ice glaciers that bring down years of winter (winter is coming!) 😛 fossil fuels are expensive to get, are expensive to maintain, pollute and do massive damage when being burned in mass within our atmosphere.. same for coal.. the thought that we shouldn’t improve our ability to adapt and survive because of the risk of warming/cooling the planet is self centered, dangerous, and just plain stupid..

    Nothing.. absolutely nothing we are doing right now is going to hurt the planet.. the planet will be just fine.. we may kill ourselves off through pollution, war, or natural disasters.. but the planet could care less if we scratch around on the surface.. cause once we are gone.. either through self affliction or lack of preparation for the next natural disaster, the planet will continue on as if we were not even here….

    we must absolutely continue to improve both our technology and socially or face the consequences of being unprepared which will cost millions if not billions of people their lives. Change is going to and will always persist whether we help it along or it happens naturally. To ensure our survival we need better energy sources, better applications of the technology we have. the ability to socially meet and conquer the challenges we will face.

    we must get to space, harness its resources and spread to near by habitats if we are to ensure our survival as a species. the e-cat can be a major step toward that goal.

    • Omega Z

      At some point, things will change that we have nothing to do with or any control over. Our only hope of long term survival is by technology. Spreading out thru the solar system & if possible, the Galaxy.

  • Billy Jackson

    Hmmm I agree that energy will never be truly free in a capital sense. Economic Cost, Regulations, and Social factors at this point in our history has proven if someone can profit they will do so. I do not see within our foreseeable future the rest being a problem.

    roughly 20,000 years ago Manhattan was under 1 mile of ice from glaciers.. imagine that if you can.. find the tallest skyscraper in new york.. triple its size and you will get an idea of how high that is….. fact of life.. the planet will change, we will adapt, people will die from changes… the only thing that is guaranteed is change will happen.

    We have a small window in the time frame of the planet, its literally a blink.. to get ourselves sorted out and prepared to survive the next violent change. be it weather that does not let us grow crops. or ice glaciers that bring down years of winter (winter is coming!) 😛 fossil fuels are expensive to get, are expensive to maintain, pollute and do massive damage when being burned in mass within our atmosphere.. same for coal.. the thought that we shouldn’t improve our ability to adapt and survive because of the risk of warming/cooling the planet is self centered, dangerous, and just plain stupid..

    Nothing.. absolutely nothing we are doing right now is going to hurt the planet.. the planet will be just fine.. we may kill ourselves off through pollution, war, or natural disasters.. but the planet could care less if we scratch around on the surface.. cause once we are gone.. either through self affliction or lack of preparation for the next natural disaster, the planet will continue on as if we were not even here….

    we must absolutely continue to improve both our technology and socially or face the consequences of being unprepared which will cost millions if not billions of people their lives. Change is going to and will always persist whether we help it along or it happens naturally. To ensure our survival we need better energy sources, better applications of the technology we have. the ability to socially meet and conquer the challenges we will face.

    we must get to space, harness its resources and spread to near by habitats if we are to ensure our survival as a species. the e-cat can be a major step toward that goal.

    • Omega Z

      At some point, things will change that we have nothing to do with or any control over. Our only hope of long term survival is by technology. Spreading out thru the solar system & if possible, the Galaxy.

      • bachcole

        Our only hope of long term real happiness is by spiritual/inner growth.

  • Davey Boy

    Free energy – free aircon

  • Adams’ article is beyond weak, with incorrect assumptions and faulty logic. I shall destroy his five reasons that free energy will destroy the planet:

    1) Massive population explosion due to incredibly cheap food production

    You find rapid population growth in under-developed nations, not in rich nations where food is plentiful. Just look at this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate. Most of the developed world has fertility rates that would actually lead to population decline rather than explosion (except for the French who just can’t help themselves… sorry Alain). The connection between food (and standard of living) and population growth is exactly the opposite of what he asserts. Strike one.

    2) Explosion of residential and commercial development due to zero-cost fuels

    I’m not even sure what to make of this one. People have to live and work somewhere and they already do. The only thing free energy would change is to open up a little more freedom as to where and how. What’s the concern exactly? His population assumption is incorrect and anyway if you’ve ever driven across the country (USA), you know we’re not about to run out of room anytime soon. If anything, LENR makes urban living (and working) more practical and will probably lead to something of an urban renaissance. I’d also like to point out that commercial expansion depends on a lot of other factors besides energy costs.

    3) Huge increase in resource extraction (mining, fossil water, etc.) in order to supply the increasingly large population

    Again he’s freaking out about all those people, which was a bad assumption. But even if he’s right about the number of people he’s completely overlooked that we are mere decades away from having the technology to recycle just about everything with nanotechnology and 3d printers. We have raw material in landfills already and the earth’s crust to give us all everything we need 20 times over once the technology matures. Fossil fuel extraction will trend quickly toward zero. Fracking will cease. Mineral mining increases will barely move the needle cause we’ll be recycling practically everything. Nobody will even notice.

    4) Huge growth of the number of vehicles on the road, ships in the sea and airplanes in the sky

    Again freaking out about his population growth assumptions and that all those people are being born in developed nations where they have cars, take plane trips and cruises — not likely. Anyway, nobody would even notice a doubling of ships at sea. Who cares? Besides, most of those oil tankers would be gone and they are the greatest threat to the environment, ship-wise. Twice as many planes? Meh. So what. Some additional airports and airport expansions. Or maybe high speed rail replaces a lot of the air traffic. It’s not like the skies are going to be pitch dark due to airplanes everywhere (unless we let Amazon deliver stuff by drones). Road traffic double? Not likely. Roads and work/home community arrangements are kind of self-limiting and self-organizing. We may decide to build more roads if they are needed — that’ll be cheaper thanks to free energy. It’ll be up to each community to decide if it wants more roads. or facilitate telecommuting or other modes of travel (rail, including out of the way underground rail become much less expensive to build and operate with free energy). With technology supporting working from anywhere, work-related travel will continue diminish (percentage-wise).

    5) An abandonment of nearly all energy efficiency efforts as energy prices plummet to near-zero. If electricity costs nearly nothing, after all, then what motivation is there for efficient use of heaters and air conditioners? Why even bother to buy insulation?

    Cheaper energy costs are a good thing and if that increases waste heat/energy then so be it. Where will all that waste heat go? Won’t we cause climate change that way? No, don’t be ridiculous. The first thing inexpensive green energy will do is enable a solution to greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which will allow a greater percentage of infrared energy to escape. In the out-years if heat generation actually becomes a real problem for communities there are two terrific heat sinks (Space and the Earth’s crust) and a million easy engineering solutions that could channel the heat exactly where we want it, not to mention we could always reintroduce efficiency as a design goal and regulate it, which should be very easy to do by then. I don’t think it’ll come to that. Devices that generate too much heat will probably suffer in the marketplace. And the assumption he makes is that we never discover more efficient ways to go right from LENR (or whatever) to useful electricity, which I think is a really bad assumption.

    So this article is unnecessarily pessimistic, makes bad assumptions about population growth’s relationship to energy availability and development of parallel technologies and misunderstands how the energy and other technology revolutions underway will affect (in a positive way) all of our living and working activities, optimizing them to our desires, not vaulting us into some uncontrolled overheated gridlock.

    • I take it easy,
      not that good fecondity (just enough not to disapear) is not linked to some specific competence of men or women. in france in the campaigns, theer was a birth control… nobody know how, but there was clear birth control because of inheritance laws asking for sharing among childrens… It was forbidden, sentenced to death, but clearly done…
      In Indonesia if you ask old women they tell you what to do to reduce fecundity, or increase miking (Soya milk is a fantastic endocrine disruptor to increase milking)…

      currently the reason we have good fecundity is that there is good infrastructure for women to work AND have children. there is also some helps to cover part of the cost. A kind is more affordable in france, and working with a child is possible. Tuition fees is also important to deter raising children.
      Germany is awful on that subject and women have to choose between children and career. US have problem with children education, which make middle class have few children.

      basically when people get richer they want few chidren, to care better on them, and because it cost more money and give no help at work.
      In some countries the social system help mother work and raise children, and make families less afraid to be bigger…
      but 4 is a maximum even in france… 3 is a treshold, even if there is many tax reductions and cost reductions… new house, new car, no 2nd job…

      note that unlike the legend, the immigrants don’t have many children… quickly they understand the cost, the hope also… they have a slightly higher fecundity, but not huge as in Africa.
      Note that in many countries, like Iran or some poorer, fecundity is getting lower.
      in Iran after a campaign to grow children for the iraq war, the mulaf supported a birth control campaign to save the economy (as I say often religion does not support fecundity… people chose what they understand of the religion).

      as you see the question for rich planet is whether the population will decrease quickly like in Germany, or slowly like in France.

      population bomb is not even incompetence it is blatant lie, manipulation.

  • georgehants

    Climate Depot
    Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘I fear a global cooling’ – Rips Obama for ‘hollow’ climate claims
    Moore: ‘President Obama seems to say it is sufficient to say the ‘science is settled’. It is hollow statement with no content.
    On Kids: ‘Change the way our kids are being taught about this
    subject because if we don’t there will be a whole generation of people
    who are just blindly following this climate hysteria.’
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/09/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-i-fear-a-global-cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/

    • fripw

      Moore was a member not co-founder. He consults for nuclear power and big industry. He does not have credentials to be be sited as proof against global climate change.

      • GreenWin

        Many doubt the claims of the climate gang because of their endless ad hominem attacks rather than simple disagreement with other opinions. Patrick Moore, holds a PhD in ecology from University British Columbia:

        Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.

        In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promotion of sustainability and consensus building among competing concerns. He was a member of British Columbia government-appointed Round Table on the Environment and Economy from 1990 – 1994. In 1990, Dr. Moore founded and chaired the BC Carbon Project, a group that worked to develop a common understanding of climate change

        Dr. Moore served for four years as Vice President, Environment for Waterfurnace International, the largest manufacturer of geothermal heat pumps for residential heating and cooling with renewable earth energy.

        As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC, he leads the process of developing the “Principles of Sustainable Forestry” which have been adopted by a majority of the industry.” The climate gang simply cannot fathom that one of their own has adopted the non-consensus opinion.

        • this is to face with the position of greenpeace current staff that he is a non important member, financed by evil force… and dark vador of greenpeace…

          given all their past and current lies and urban myth (on nuke, on fracking, on shell, on their funding, on themselves) they make Mary Yugo look like an innocent child.

  • Private Citizen

    Might worry about a number of unintended consequences before an overheated world.

    Worry that with such a concentrated energy source, someone will find a way to create a critical, rapid energy release–the LENR bomb. If not a LENR bomb, certainly we’d see hordes of LENR powered weapons. Utopians (many flit here) will respond that LENR will create plenty and peace–but that argument has been made before (fission energy making a world utopia). LENR will not erase domination from the human repertory.

    Also worry that the technology will just raise the carrying capacity of the planet until we reach the next disgusting plateau of unsustainability.

    As for the kinetic heating, while possible i suppose, it would require orders of magnitude more heat production than present, while the earth will radiate most of the heat into space. By the time it became a problem, we could probably devise technologies to scavenge the heat and/or radiate it. As it is we have a huge 6,000 degree nuclear furnace in the earth’s core and no overheating from that.

    • Wayne M.

      “next disgusting plateau of unsustainability”

      Agreed. I just looked at my trashed patio after my forth of July party.

  • georgehants

    Climate Depot
    Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘I fear a global cooling’ – Rips Obama for ‘hollow’ climate claims
    Moore: ‘President Obama seems to say it is sufficient to say the ‘science is settled’. It is hollow statement with no content.
    On Kids: ‘Change the way our kids are being taught about this
    subject because if we don’t there will be a whole generation of people
    who are just blindly following this climate hysteria.’
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/09/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-i-fear-a-global-cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/

    • fripw

      Moore was a member not co-founder. He consults for nuclear power and big industry. He does not have credentials to be be sited as proof against global climate change.

      • bachcole

        Neither does anyone else, except Al Gore, of course, whose credentials are that he invented the Internet. And, of course the guys who manipulate data and say that computer models are proof; they are highly credible. We mustn’t forget about them.

      • GreenWin

        Many doubt the claims of the climate gang because of their endless ad hominem attacks rather than simple disagreement with other opinions. Patrick Moore, holds a PhD in ecology from University British Columbia:

        Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.

        In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promotion of sustainability and consensus building among competing concerns. He was a member of British Columbia government-appointed Round Table on the Environment and Economy from 1990 – 1994. In 1990, Dr. Moore founded and chaired the BC Carbon Project, a group that worked to develop a common understanding of climate change

        Dr. Moore served for four years as Vice President, Environment for Waterfurnace International, the largest manufacturer of geothermal heat pumps for residential heating and cooling with renewable earth energy.

        As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC, he leads the process of developing the “Principles of Sustainable Forestry” which have been adopted by a majority of the industry.” The climate gang simply cannot fathom that one of their own has adopted the non-consensus opinion.

        • bachcole

          Good post, GreenWin. The constant ad hominem attacks, the data manipulation, the emails, and the fact that the various solar theories fit the datapoints better; that does it for me.

        • this is to face with the position of greenpeace current staff that he is a non important member, financed by evil force… and dark vador of greenpeace…

          given all their past and current lies and urban myth (on nuke, on fracking, on shell, on their funding, on themselves) they make Mary Yugo look like an innocent child.

  • georgehants

    It would rather clear the air if one of the premier science comics where to write an editorial explaining the new proven science of Cold Fusion and the benefits it will bring to mankind.

  • georgehants

    It would rather clear the air if one of the premier science comics where to write an editorial explaining the new proven science of Cold Fusion and the benefits it will bring to mankind, including the guesses about Global Warming.

  • Charles

    Every engineer in the world has heard that detestable, stinking, infuriating word: Trade-offs. some of this for some of that.

    Current energy producers give us energy(heat) & LOTSA pollution. LENR (as constituted in the E-Cat e.g.) would give us energy(heat) and a teensy-weensy bit more copper but less nickel and hydrogen and ZERO pollution. I’ll take that trade-off in the twinkle of an eye.

    As for LENR heating up the earth, so does current energy producers. Would we squander LENR energy? Probably somewhat, it will not be free, just cheaper (maybe a lot cheaper – depends on the competition available). A lot more energy would be used since it would be available in every nook and cranny in the world, not to mention the deserts for desalinization. Maybe those guys at Carrier and Crane can figure out how to use cold fusion to air-condition the climate – or whatever we are calling it now. I really love that e=mc^2 number. That c^2 part really is a huge
    number so it will only take a teensy-weensy bit of matter and nickel and
    hydrogen is plentiful.

    Anyway, let’s have at it and then do what is necessary.

  • Charles

    Every engineer in the world has heard that detestable, stinking, infuriating word: Trade-offs. some of this for some of that.

    Current energy producers give us energy(heat) & LOTSA pollution. LENR (as constituted in the E-Cat e.g.) would give us energy(heat) and a teensy-weensy bit more copper but less nickel and hydrogen and ZERO pollution. I’ll take that trade-off in the twinkle of an eye.

    As for LENR heating up the earth, so does current energy producers. Would we squander LENR energy? Probably somewhat, it will not be free, just cheaper (maybe a lot cheaper – depends on the competition available). A lot more energy would be used since it would be available in every nook and cranny in the world, not to mention the deserts for desalinization. Maybe those guys at Carrier and Crane can figure out how to use cold fusion to air-condition the climate – or whatever we are calling it now. I really love that e=mc^2 number. That c^2 part really is a huge
    number so it will only take a teensy-weensy bit of matter and nickel and
    hydrogen is plentiful.

    Anyway, let’s have at it and then do what is necessary.

  • Otto1923

    I heard this waste heat argument long before LENR. The main problem with explosive economic and tech activity in obsolete cultures has always been a Malthusian explosion in population growth. It is this which will destroy the planet unless the growth-based cultures are destroyed first.

  • Positron

    That’s innumerate.

    At the surface, the earth receives on average 340 watts/metre squared (S)

    total solar energy received on earth is therefore

    4 * pi * r^2 * S =4 * (6.37 * 10^6m)^2 * 340 W/m2 = 1.74 10^17 W

    That s 174 petawatts, or 174 petajoules per second.

    Worst case: If each and every person on the earth had their own 1 megawatt ecat, running 24×7 at full capacity, and not doing any useful work, just heating up the atmosphere, then that would represent

    7 * 10^9 * 1^ 6 = 7 * 10^15

    or about 4% of the total energy from the sun.

    I guess that might be enough to raise global temperatures a bit. But it it did, use some of that cheap energy to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Then any excess heat would be radiated away.

    In practice of course our personal energy budgets will be much, much lower, and we will use it to do something useful, so not all the energy will be transformed into waste heat

    • bachcole

      “I guess that might be enough to raise global temperatures a bit. But it
      it did, use some of that cheap energy to suck CO2 out of the
      atmosphere. Then any excess heat would be radiated away.” NO it wouldn’t. All of the plants and animals in the world, including us, would die. Both plants and animals need CO2, and in fact we are at the very lowest CO2 level that we can survive, 150 ppm being about as low as we can go. We need to get up to about 1,000 ppm. We have recently risen to about 400 ppm, a good thing in my opinion.

      You have been brainwashed by the CO2 hysterians. We NEED CO2 and we would DIE without it. Human beings cannot breath without it. If we wanted to lower the impact that the Sun has on global temperature, we would have to sequester H2O, which seems to be even stupider to me than sequestering CO2.

  • Robert Ellefson

    This ‘article’ seems preposterous. I have a very difficult time believing that direct heating from anthropogenic activities could produce anything remotely approaching the amount of warming that is occurring thanks to increased greenhouse gasses. Without even a very rough estimate of the potential effects of direct heating to support these preposterous assertions, why has this article been published here? It is just trash talk disguised with reasonable-sounding words.

  • the scaremongerins reloaded…

    when you know the huge quantify of wasted sun heat… ah ah…

    no news, it is predicted that Mathusians (see the CV of that guy) will panic like Church in Spring break.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?791-Gibbs-LENR-unintended-consequences

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/376-Opinion-on-Swedish-Radio-An-Enemy-of-LENR-and-Clean-Energy-%E2%80%93-the-Misguided-Envir/

    but LENr is permission less innovation

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?2553-Permissionless-innovation&highlight=malthusians

  • the scaremongerins reloaded…

    when you know the huge quantify of wasted sun heat… ah ah…

    no news, it is predicted that Mathusians (see the CV of that guy) will panic like Church in Spring break.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?791-Gibbs-LENR-unintended-consequences

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/376-Opinion-on-Swedish-Radio-An-Enemy-of-LENR-and-Clean-Energy-%E2%80%93-the-Misguided-Envir/

    but LENr is permission less innovation

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?2553-Permissionless-innovation&highlight=malthusians

  • catfish

    someone just wanted to get the award for “I was afraid of it first.” Mr Adam’s article has no merit. It only serves to possibly hinder interest in a technology that could do great good. I do not understand those who are against any kind of progress. We cannot go back as a species, only forward technologically, outrunning the tigers we’ve let out of cages one by one. I can only suppose the man is a nihilist.

    • Omega Z

      Some people have a natural hate of humanity & would like to see us eliminated. Because We interfere with nature. They don’t seem to comprehend that we are in fact, a part of nature. Eliminating us is interference in & of itself.

  • Yu Chem

    It may be a problem but it is not.
    Considering human energy need ~15TW which is 1/10,000 of total solar energy coming to Earth in form of radiation: 174 PW, even if we increase our energy consumption 100 fold! it wills still be just 1% of solar radiation. I guess, fluctuation of 1% happened before and there should be no problem of radiating extra heat into the space.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

    More warrysome is actually COOLING, with cleaner air, the heat will dissipate easily, with less CO2 in the air there will be less tree growth too.

  • Matt Smart

    He has a point, but that point is not taking in to account all the heat that will be saved from no longer running all of those fossil fuel engines that power our planet 24/7. Heat as an emission will be the new bugbear that we try to reduce. It’s more possible to reduce heat output with insulation and then reusing that heat back into the origin power system than to stop mega tons of noxious toxic gases escaping into our atmosphere.

    Yes we will have headaches that we haven’t yet thought about along with the advent of “free fuel” but not having “free fuel” raises far more worries for mankind than heat which we can learn to control efficiently.

  • gdaigle

    I think that the additional Btus that might be generated by LENR, even if it is adopted remarkably fast, would be small compared to just the amount of sunlight energy that falls on the Earth.

    Let’s say that cheaper (not “free”) energy doubles the use of energy by 2030, which is quite an aggressive number but let’s stick with it for now. According to the US Department of Energy (Energy Information Administration), the world consumption of energy in all of its forms (barrels of petroleum, cubic meters of natural gas, watts of hydro power, etc.) is projected to reach 678 “quads” (quadrillion) Btu by 2030.

    Doubling it due to increased adoption by LENR projects an increase of another 678 quads of energy by 2030. It does so without also producing greenhouse gases which stay in the atmosphere and which cumulatively contribute to warming.

    Some sources estimate that the total solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface per year is 8.2 million quads of Btu energy. So the Btus generated by LENR would be equivalent to an .00827% increase in energy at the surface of the Earth. It would be the same amount of increase in absorption of sunlight if the Earth’s surface was larger by the size of Estonia.

    • Doug Cutler

      Right you are. Plus the fossil fuels and nuclear that LENR would replace already produce copious amounts of their own BTUs. Also the planet radiates a tremendous amount of heat out into space every day. As heat trapping atmospheric CO2 gradually subsides more heat radiates into space.

    • I think there is a potential heating issue that can’t summarily dismissed though and it has two components. One is that there could very well be a huge growth in the number of devices large and small (smart pebbles everywhere?) that humanity will come to use. So, more than population growth, a change in our behavior could cause heat sources to spike. The second is that an analysis of the entire surface of the planet ignores the fact that many of these heat sources will be concentrated in small areas. So while it’s hard to imagine the Earth overheating it’s easier to imagine a city or dense suburb having a problem.

      Fortunately excess heat can be easily engineered away, so I don’t think it’s an actual problem. Just wanted to throw that out there.

      • urbanism techniques can solve UHI.
        the color of roof, land coverage, forest and agricultural practice can worsen of solve UHI problem.
        just controlling how sun energy is absorbed by the land is one order of magnitued than what energy produce.

        note that local production of energy may in fact lower the primary use of energy, because there will be less waste and more control.

        note also that making people see their energy consuption on their bill, may make them more responsible. it is well observed that shared heating induce more waste (despite better efficiency) than individual heating (which is more expensive in theory, but less in reality because of behaviors).

        for me the best impact of LENr won’t be on energy itself but on many things that won’t be anymore needed, like roads for oil trucks, electric lines, smoke protections, cleaning, tunnel air flow, batteries, big government and big corps, oil wars…

  • georgehants

    I really do not think that one should take much notice of what science says, while NASA sends toy trucks to mars etc. to explore, costing billions, they show that they actually do not know hardly a thing about the Earth we live on.
    ———
    Tech Times
    Earth found hiding huge reservoirs of water 400 miles below…but not water as we know it
    Oceans of water trapped deep beneath the surface of the United States
    could be the largest deposits of the substance anywhere on the planet.
    This water is found in a bizarre state, unlike any encountered in
    day-to-day life.
    Northwestern University researchers, along with colleagues from the
    University of New Mexico, found evidence of vast storehouses of the
    material deep in Earth’s mantle.
    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-water-400-miles-below.htm

    • Wayne M.

      If you don’t think we should listen to scientists, who do you recommend that we listen to?

      BTW, who is ‘Tech Times’ listening to?

      • MikeP

        Wayne, you need to know who really is a scientist … there are no standards … there are no certifications such as there are for Engineers … anybody can call themselves a scientist even if they have no relevant education and even if they violate every tenet of the scientific method …

      • bachcole

        Scientists have a much too narrow focus for many issues, for me. Very few health scientists even use the Theory of Evolution as their jumping off point for health ideas. Just because XYZ10ABC molecule removes acne does not mean that it builds health or is even non-harmful. The typical scientist may be an expert concerning XYZ10ABC, but he is utterly clueless about building health and in many cases denies that there is even such a thing as building health.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Me, you should listen to me.

      • GreenWin

        Wayne, try to understand not everyone believes the Ivory Tower myth you propagate – i.e. only people attending certain clubby institutions have expertise and opinion of value. That myth is coming to an end. And by all means, listen to Ophelia. She has a healthy dose of expertise called – common sense.

        • bachcole

          Yes, I like Ophelia best around here. Only I hope that she doesn’t morph into Max Q. Northfield or whatever.

          • georgehants

            Why would it matter who somebody is, it only matters what somebody says.
            Obvious to any fool that being personal is a defect.

  • georgehants

    I really do not think that one should take much notice of what science says, while NASA sends toy trucks to mars etc. to explore, costing billions, they show that they actually do not know hardly a thing about the Earth we live on.
    ———
    Tech Times
    Earth found hiding huge reservoirs of water 400 miles below…but not water as we know it
    Oceans of water trapped deep beneath the surface of the United States
    could be the largest deposits of the substance anywhere on the planet.
    This water is found in a bizarre state, unlike any encountered in
    day-to-day life.
    Northwestern University researchers, along with colleagues from the
    University of New Mexico, found evidence of vast storehouses of the
    material deep in Earth’s mantle.
    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-water-400-miles-below.htm

    • Wayne M.

      If you don’t think we should listen to scientists, who do you recommend that we listen to?

      BTW, who is ‘Tech Times’ listening to?

      • MikeP

        Wayne, you need to know who really is a scientist … there are no standards … there are no certifications such as there are for Engineers … anybody can call themselves a scientist even if they have no relevant education and even if they violate every tenet of the scientific method …

      • bachcole

        Scientists have a much too narrow focus for many issues, for me. Very few health scientists even use the Theory of Evolution as their jumping off point for health ideas. Just because XYZ10ABC molecule removes acne does not mean that it builds health or is even non-harmful. The typical scientist may be an expert concerning XYZ10ABC, but he is utterly clueless about building health and in many cases denies that there is even such a thing as building health.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Me, you should listen to me.

      • GreenWin

        Wayne, try to understand not everyone believes the Ivory Tower myth you propagate – i.e. only people attending certain clubby institutions have expertise and opinion of value. That myth is coming to an end. And by all means, listen to Ophelia. She has a healthy dose of expertise called – common sense.

        • bachcole

          Yes, I like Ophelia best around here. Only I hope that she doesn’t morph into Max Q. Northfield or whatever.

          • georgehants

            Why would it matter who somebody is, it only matters what somebody says.

  • theBuckWheat

    I have long speculated that liberals (er, now “progressives”) would find some complaint to lodge against LENR. This may be it.

    There have been 8 ice ages in the last 740,000 years. Before we speculate on how LENR will ruin the planet, I would like to know how for certain we are not going to need LENR to survive when then next ice age comes.

    With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that postulate what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.

    That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that there climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science all converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

    • Billy Jackson

      absolutely buck…

      I will go so far as to say yes. we MAY be having a small impact on our climate.. maybe.. we may accelerate the process to the next ice age .. but its going to happen anyway despite anything we do. its the natural flow of the planet. LENR and its possibilities may be one of the few technologies that will save us from mass die off when crops wont grow to feed and warm the 7+ billion people on the planet..

      what i cant condone is the constant attempt to turn climate change into big business for the government and its cronies to use to raise taxes or further their attempts to gain more social powers.

      • Daniel Maris

        We need a bit of humility on climate. We really don’t understand all its mechanisms yet – and there are so many factors at play (solar energy, volcanic eruptions, plant and animal life, sea currents, prevailing winds, ice, oceanic heat, human carbon emissions, artificial irrigation schemes, to name just a few) that our predictive abilities are limited I think.

        We should look to minimise our effects on the planet, and I think LENR does potentially minimise them.

        • Billy Jackson

          that’s something i can agree with. and yes LENR does fit that bill. if we can get rid of our pollution from it will be a serious goal to clean up our waste.

  • theBuckWheat

    I have long speculated that liberals (er, now “progressives”) would find some complaint to lodge against LENR. This may be it.

    There have been 8 ice ages in the last 740,000 years. Before we speculate on how LENR will ruin the planet, I would like to know how for certain we are not going to need LENR to survive when then next ice age comes.

    With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that postulate what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.

    That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that there climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science all converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

    • Billy Jackson

      absolutely buck…

      I will go so far as to say yes. we MAY be having a small impact on our climate.. maybe.. we may accelerate the process to the next ice age .. but its going to happen anyway despite anything we do. its the natural flow of the planet. LENR and its possibilities may be one of the few technologies that will save us from mass die off when crops wont grow to feed and warm the 7+ billion people on the planet..

      what i cant condone is the constant attempt to turn climate change into big business for the government and its cronies to use to raise taxes or further their attempts to gain more social powers.

  • Timar

    What a completely idiotic nonesense. Anyone having the slightest idea about the magnitudes of energy derived from the sun vs. the magnitude of energy produced by man can only laugh about this.

    Mike Adams and Natural News are in my opinion one of the most virulent sources of paranoid disinformation on the internet.

    • tobalt

      Wrong. Currently energ use is already only 6000 timesbelow the value received from the sun. A small factor should energy use potentiate itself. A 1000 fold increase without counteraction will be catastrophic

      • Omega Z

        If things stay static. Wont happen. Change is continuous.
        It will take decades to integrate LENR the world over, & it’s likely the changes that comes with it will reduce energy consumption.
        Unless you know of a way to stop all the other technologies in development.

  • georgehants

    It would be good to remember that behind the politicians, science, media etc. pulling the strings are the rich and powerful that determine every aspect of everyones lives.
    Remove them and I think we would see a very big change in how the World is run.

    • Hector McNuget

      Hear! hear! only worse creature than corrupted sciencetist or rich persons is rich sciencetists person!

      • Donk970

        I’d love to see an example of a truly rich “scientist person”. The idea is almost oxymoronic.

        • GreenWin

          Does Algore count himself a scientist?

          • Ophelia Rump

            If he does, he is the only one.

          • GreenWin

            I guess “He does not have credentials to be be sited as proof [for] global climate change.” fripw

    • Wayne M.

      The rich and powerful do not determine every aspect of everyone’s lives.

      “Remove them” how? Prison camps. Mass executions. The rise of the proletariat. Gulags. Doesn’t sound like any change at all in how the ‘World’ was run in the past.

  • Christopher Calder

    The biggest downside of LENR is not waste heat, but the fact that even small nations and independent terrorist groups will be abe to build around the world cruise missiles. American presidents have had a high old fun time bombing other nations and peoples with impunity, but in the future the fun will stop because we will be on the receiving end.

    • Guru

      As I wrote 7 years back: Far more simpler and cheaper will build torpedoes with unlimited range with towed sensor which will go on surface one time per few hours for GPS adjustment and after that again sunk. Of course also with terminal acoustic guide. Such torpedoes will have potential for fatal brake in international trade. For example for North Koreans this will weapon of doom.
      For Colombian drug trafficker this will transport vehicle – unlimited range torpedoes with predictable payload.

    • Alain Samoun

      To me,it’s just the opposite,LENR will cut the funding of the terrorist groups: Saudi Arabia,Gulf Emirats etc…and,in the same time,the war machine in the US.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If I am not mistaken a cruise missile takes a little more than just a power source.
      Were you planning to make them steam powered? How much water would that require?

    • Omega Z

      If you improve living standards, It will reduce most conflicts.
      They would have few followers. A large portion of what’s called insurgents, Etc.. are paid. It’s a means of supporting themselves.

      There will be a few that continue, but miniature drones could just drop a marble sized bomb on their heads & blow their brains out. OK, A little messy & people getting splattered with brain matter & entrails so maybe will go with a million watt laser & incinerate them. No muss, No fuss. Just dust of that carbon dust & move along people.

  • The biggest downside of LENR is not waste heat, but the fact that even small nations and independent terrorist groups will be abe to build around the world cruise missiles. American presidents have had a high old fun time bombing other nations and peoples with impunity, but in the future the fun will stop because we will be on the receiving end.

    • Guru

      As I wrote 7 years back: Far more simpler and cheaper will build torpedoes with unlimited range with towed sensor which will go on surface one time per few hours for GPS adjustment and after that again sunk. Of course also with terminal acoustic guide. Such torpedoes will have potential for fatal brake in international trade. For example for North Koreans this will weapon of doom.
      For Colombian drug trafficker this will transport vehicle – unlimited range torpedoes with predictable payload.

    • Alain Samoun

      To me,it’s just the opposite,LENR will cut the funding of the terrorist groups: Saudi Arabia,Gulf Emirats etc…and,in the same time,the war machine in the US.

      • Christina

        The terrorist leaders are not stupid and some are rich.

        They see what we are doing and may or may not know that we will soon have new energy. They’re probably investing right and left and when the new energy comes, will have it too because they planned ahead.

        So yes, I think they’ll send us bombs from overseas because they believe we are all the devil’s spawn and must be attacked until we agree to become part of the Muslim world.

        It’s reality just as surely as the sun is shining.

        What we must do is discover how to put some kind of “force shields” over our homes and businesses. I don’t mean that literally (unless someone can do it) because we must develop some kind of defensive capabilities because lenr will surely bring challenges of a military nature.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If I am not mistaken a cruise missile takes a little more than just a power source.
      Were you planning to make them steam powered? How much water would that require?

    • bachcole

      As I have said umpteen times, LENR will not improve human character. We have to do that all by ourselves.

    • Omega Z

      If you improve living standards, It will reduce most conflicts.
      They would have few followers. A large portion of what’s called insurgents, Etc.. are paid. It’s a means of supporting themselves.

      There will be a few that continue, but miniature drones could just drop a marble sized bomb on their heads & blow their brains out. OK, A little messy & people getting splattered with brain matter & entrails so maybe will go with a million watt laser & incinerate them. No muss, No fuss. Just dust of that carbon dust & move along people.

      • bachcole

        I doubt if religious fanatics care much about money. But reducing the cash flow from the rich to the poor will reduce the ability of religious fanatics to strike.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe Mike Adams has a point. In principle this could happen, but it will take hundreds of years before that will happen. First we may see an reduction of the average earth temperature (because of the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing COP of CF) and much later the temperature will increase again. The increase of energy is (now already) based on a power series (it doubles every so-many years), but the power series of unlimited energy, not limited to cost, is far more potent and he is right, people cannot be trusted that they voluntarily limit their needs. However, we have time and may be able to adapt when things go wrong and no doubt, direct heat input into the atmosphere is easier to calculate than the influence of carbon dioxide. The short term need for power is far more important for the people in the world than the those maybe problems in the far future. So let’s have Cold Fusion!

  • Fibber McGourlick

    No problem. We’ll just build a big air conditioner to counteract it.

  • bitplayer

    1) Stopping LENR would be like stopping steam power, so the rant is irrelevant.

    2)
    X = joules of energy of lifetime solar capture from greenhouse gas emissions of 1 barrel of oil.
    Y = joules of energy directly released from burning 1 barrel of oil
    Calculate Y/X

    yeah, yeah, lots of variables, but a first order approximation should be possible.

    • Christopher Calder

      I think estimates of how much CO2 increases the much needed greenhouse effect are wrong, and have been proven wrong by planetary history. We greatly increased CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide release over the last 20 years due to global biofuel farming, but the Earth did not get any warmer. The warmest July in the USA during the 20th & 21st century was in 1936. The earth cooled during the post WWII industrial-consumer boom. It should have gotten warmer if CO2 made a difference.

      “When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.” – “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.” – Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore, Ph.D.

      • bitplayer

        Ahh oooga. Ahh oooga. Abandon discussion thread. Abandon discussion thread. AGW controversy off the port bow, closing fast. ARRGG! Impact!

  • Martin

    Just make use of a bit of the energy to make some extra cloud cover to reflect a bit more of the suns energy – there problem solved! Science and ingenuity will always beat the hippy conservatives worst case scenarios. Just need to be careful to look at all the parameters…

    • robyn wyrick

      Alright, I just find it hilarious that you used the words “hippy conservatives”.

    • tobalt

      No. As i said yesterday, If power use increases 6000fold we aleeady equal solar radiance on earth. Beyond this point blocking sun will be a small effect. and. The emissivity of earth would have to be raised. And potentially its radius. To maintain moderate temperatures. Both seem very invasive. A easier way could be to outsource very energy demanding industries to something like mars or some of the icy mons further out where the additional heat might come in handy

      • Omega Z

        I see a doubling of present energy production.
        “That leaves a window for another 5998 increase.” LOL
        At double present use, the resource limitations will already have started increasing it’s cost. You don’t really believe in Limitless do you. Silly people.

  • Donk970

    I’d love to see an example of a truly rich “scientist person”. The idea is almost oxymoronic.

    • GreenWin

      Does Algore count himself a scientist?

      • Ophelia Rump

        If he does, he is the only one.

        • GreenWin

          I guess “He does not have credentials to be be sited as proof [for] global climate change.” fripw

  • Barry8

    Sounds like a lot of opinion science. I’d like to know the rough calculations for the offset of coal and auto emissions, not to mention nuclear safety. I also find the term “imbecilic masses” to be a red flag.

  • Sounds like a lot of opinion science. I’d like to know the rough calculations for the offset of coal and auto emissions, not to mention nuclear safety. I also find the term “imbecilic masses” to be a red flag.

  • bachcole

    I agree that this will be the argument of the hysterians and those whose right brains have atrophied.

  • GreenWin

    I’ll be commenting later as I am neck up in ice cubes, now I can make my own at home for “free.” The great devil in abundance is people become slaves to free stuff – like icecubes. I’m planning on driving my Tesla S EV around the world with a little LENR APU in the back. Since the electric is “free” why not? Oh, and I’ll be uninstalling all electric power switches ’cause, why bother to turn stuff off? Except, I’ll terminate the air conditioning at the office for August – my 200 employees will understand it’s an exercise in frugality – just ’cause energy’s near free and makes life better doesn’t mean we have to adopt its devilish ways!! But Arghh, my subscription to Gloom & Doom Daily (delivered from the cloud) is now $33/month!
    /sark

  • GreenWin

    I’ll be commenting later as I am neck up in ice cubes, now I can make my own at home for “free.” The great devil in abundance is people become slaves to free stuff – like icecubes. I’m planning on driving my Tesla S EV around the world with a little LENR APU in the back. Since the electric is “free” why not? Oh, and I’ll be uninstalling all electric power switches ’cause, why bother to turn stuff off? Except, I’ll terminate the air conditioning at the office for August – my 200 employees will understand it’s an exercise in frugality – just ’cause energy’s near free and makes life better doesn’t mean we have to adopt its devilish ways!! But Arghh, my subscription to Gloom & Doom Daily (delivered from the cloud) is now $33/month!
    /sark

  • Buck

    I prefer to rework the title of this thread to “Humanity’s Uncontrolled Monkey Mind Could Destroy the Planet”

  • Daniel Maris

    The point about something like LENR though is that we could probably, over time, grow more food underground or in towers than in soil on planet earth. Likewise, we can probably develop transmutation technologies to create materials that would otherwise be mined.

  • Buck

    I prefer to rework the title of this thread to “Humanity’s Uncontrolled Monkey Mind Could Destroy the Planet”

  • Billy Jackson

    My apologies Wayne. unfortunately i tend to have a bad reaction to stupidity.. i think i am allergic 🙂

  • MarcIrvin

    I am glad to see some rational discussion regarding the pitfalls of free energy. In the past I have blogged about this possibility among others. Free energy allows us to live anywhere, period. Some of those places will be hazardous to our environment or collective health. We are not our ancestors going to “the new world” or “west young man” where STUPID prevailed. Todays man is completely rational. Indiscriminant under sea living is a danger to sea life. Indiscriminant orbital space based living is a hazard to space travel and the human genome. Indiscriminant artic or ant-arctic living is a hazard to global warming. Under water cities pollute seas, Space born habitats are deleterious to human biology. Plentiful Artic domiciles melt caps. These are the tips of icebergs that have scared me long time because no one seems to have them on the radar. None are any danger to rational beings that’s why some will argue they are not discussed. We can prohibit these activities. Limit space, sea, and arctic colonization. Right? I wonder.

    • Billy Jackson

      People should be held to be responsible for their actions. be it in space, sea, or arctic colonizations. i have no issue with any of those happening as long as its with the understanding that if you “pollute” you will be responsible for the clean up. be it an individual or company. I would find this kind of policy alot more acceptable than denying access for fear that someone may “pollute” a given habitat”

      • bachcole

        Thank you, Billy, for saving my typing time.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Some things cannot be undone, what of those?

        • Billy Jackson

          that’s not a easy question to answer. It would have to be handled on a case by case basis. was it intentional or carelessness that caused it? that would be a criminal issue and we have laws to handle that. it does not undo what was done.. but we have strong incentives that can be used to ensure safety. when your talking space, sea and arctic.. you tend not to take stupid people in the first place 🙂 .. (i know that’s not an answer and your question is extremely legitimate i just don’t have the ability to answer it because its a very very broad question)

    • Publius

      There will always be limits. If the Nevada desert became the next great destination for whatever reason, the price of land would increase, taxes would increase and other market factors would go to work to limit the availability. The same goes for the sea – if there was an irrational rush to populate under the sea, the various governments would step in to limit or tax this to limit the availability.

      Google supply elasticity, all of this was figured out a long time ago – even “free” or cheaper energy has its limits in a free market economy.

    • bachcole

      Free energy will do nothing to improve or harm human character. That is up to each and every individual, whether we live in a future of free energy or 1600’s England.

    • Omega Z

      To Start. It’s not free energy or anywhere close. The Energy is cheap, but the devices used to produce it will be similar to what exists.
      All the other issues you bring up can be relatively easily remediated. Most if not all have already been studied. Space fairing is an economic issue. Not Technology. With plentiful energy, you can shield negative effects & generating a simulated gravity is well known. In fact, likely all the issues you raise are economic.

  • LilyLover

    Hey, so does this mean the developed world owes something to the undeveloped world for their “coolness”? The Natural News would imply so!

    And, yes Karl, I think you very well summarized the point – real breakthrough very near – so ramp up the disinfo drums.
    & I guess that’s why Bitplayer calls it an irrelevant rant.

    No Catfish, he cannot even take the credit for – “I was afraid of it first.”
    About two years ago we had this discussion here, and many of us showed with calculations the relative magnitude of incident solar radiation and human energy consumption.
    A scenario of 10X Avg US per capita energy by 100 Billion people on planet was evaluated too. Finding: Statistically insignificant.

    Positron has done some analysis saving me some re-work. To add to his assumptions of 1MW per person for heat dump scenario-
    When I write any code, just like 20 years ago, I optimize on size and speed. Today electronic memory is too cheap to matter. But, simply as a matter of pride and good code, people in general strive for the most efficient code. Same with light bulbs. The pursuit of high efficiency is not for the sake of saving money on resources. It’s for the art of stretching boundaries of possibility; for the thrill of operating near physical limits. It’s the modern form of knight-fights.
    So, even with abundant, or shall I say, accelerated with abundant energy, we will optimize efficiencies and in the end consume less energy for our usual activities.
    The abundance will be utilized for leisure. Space travel. Bellaggio fountains in every HOA that wants it. And things alike.
    For Barry, a step further in calculating usable energy – Solar panel summer peak vs winter peak – max drop – 60% with panel efficiency of 18%.

    For those that have not read through all the calculations: If my horse is trained to win the race and performs better than all the other horses, most likely it’ll win the race. You know that and therefore you have bet on my horse. Now, say there is an ant that jumps onto my horse for a ride, not biting or anything, will you bet on other horses because of the increased weight of the ant? What if this ant carries a huge grain of sugar? Is my horse still a safe bet? Perhaps the quantity of food the jockey eats or the dust on the boots are bigger influencing parameters. Similarly, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons ae the bigger parameters for doom unlike the waste heat. The atmosphere, unlike a valve, is bi-directioinal towards radiation. Heat comes in, heat goes out. So do the every other forms of radiation. That’s why the earth is cool before Sunrise, even after the hottest day of the summer. If seasons don’t kill us all, 100X energy use won’t kill us either. Reduced emissions will rather be a cause of concern for global cooling. But we can form clouds and manipulate the entrapped heat. Either way, abundant energy is a solution to the problem; not a problem in itself.
    Abundance ends lending crisis, parasitism and generic vampirism thereby reducing terrorism. Happy go lucky and resourceful people have more to be joyous about than to avenge. Right? If not, maybe I live on a wrong planet?
    Paying for dishonesty doesn’t always work. This is the exact reason, the ivory towered parasites will invoke doubts in the sincere minds to do their bidding.
    Rosa Clebb gets more loyal Tatiana Romanova through deception and less loyal Grant for hire. Money can only go so far. & They know it!

  • LilyLover

    Hey, so does this mean the developed world owes something to the undeveloped world for their “coolness”? The Natural News would imply so!

    And, yes Karl, I think you very well summarized the point – real breakthrough very near – so ramp up the disinfo drums.
    & I guess that’s why Bitplayer calls it an irrelevant rant.

    No Catfish, he cannot even take the credit for – “I was afraid of it first.”
    About two years ago we had this discussion here, and many of us showed with calculations the relative magnitude of incident solar radiation and human energy consumption.
    A scenario of 10X Avg US per capita energy by 100 Billion people on planet was evaluated too. Finding: Statistically insignificant.

    Positron has done some analysis saving me some re-work. To add to his assumptions of 1MW per person for heat dump scenario-
    When I write any code, just like 20 years ago, I optimize on size and speed. Today electronic memory is too cheap to matter. But, simply as a matter of pride and good code, people in general strive for the most efficient code. Same with light bulbs. The pursuit of high efficiency is not for the sake of saving money on resources. It’s for the art of stretching boundaries of possibility; for the thrill of operating near physical limits. It’s the modern form of knight-fights.
    So, even with abundant, or shall I say, accelerated with abundant energy, we will optimize efficiencies and in the end consume less energy for our usual activities.
    The abundance will be utilized for leisure. Space travel. Bellaggio fountains in every HOA that wants it. And things alike.
    For Barry, a step further in calculating usable energy – Solar panel summer peak vs winter peak – max drop – 60% with panel efficiency of 18%.

    For those that have not read through all the calculations: If my horse is trained to win the race and performs better than all the other horses, most likely it’ll win the race. You know that and therefore you have bet on my horse. Now, say there is an ant that jumps onto my horse for a ride, not biting or anything, will you bet on other horses because of the increased weight of the ant? What if this ant carries a huge grain of sugar? Is my horse still a safe bet? Perhaps the quantity of food the jockey eats or the dust on the boots are bigger influencing parameters. Similarly, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons ae the bigger parameters for doom unlike the waste heat. The atmosphere, unlike a valve, is bi-directioinal towards radiation. Heat comes in, heat goes out. So do the every other forms of radiation. That’s why the earth is cool before Sunrise, even after the hottest day of the summer. If seasons don’t kill us all, 100X energy use won’t kill us either. Reduced emissions will rather be a cause of concern for global cooling. But we can form clouds and manipulate the entrapped heat. Either way, abundant energy is a solution to the problem; not a problem in itself.
    Abundance ends lending crisis, parasitism and generic vampirism thereby reducing terrorism. Happy go lucky and resourceful people have more to be joyous about than to avenge. Right? If not, maybe I live on a wrong planet?
    Paying for dishonesty doesn’t always work. This is the exact reason, the ivory towered parasites will invoke doubts in the sincere minds to do their bidding.
    Rosa Clebb gets more loyal Tatiana Romanova through deception and less loyal Grant for hire. Money can only go so far. & They know it!

  • Jamie Sibley

    Our current global energy usage is 0.01 % compared to the solar influx. If our global energy usage increases by 10x, then our human generated heating will increase to 0.1% of solar influx. I doubt this alone will increase the earths temperature much.

  • Billy Jackson

    People should be held to be responsible for their actions. be it in space, sea, or arctic colonizations. i have no issue with any of those happening as long as its with the understanding that if you “pollute” you will be responsible for the clean up. be it an individual or company. I would find this kind of policy alot more acceptable than denying access for fear that someone may “pollute” a given habitat”

    • Ophelia Rump

      Some things cannot be undone, what of those?

      • Billy Jackson

        that’s not a easy question to answer. It would have to be handled on a case by case basis. was it intentional or carelessness that caused it? that would be a criminal issue and we have laws to handle that. it does not undo what was done.. but we have strong incentives that can be used to ensure safety. when your talking space, sea and arctic.. you tend not to take stupid people in the first place 🙂 .. (i know that’s not an answer and your question is extremely legitimate i just don’t have the ability to answer it because its a very very broad question)

  • USSSkipjack

    This is so stupid for so many reasons. If we had unlimited energy, we could also use it to counter act any warming with otherwise expensive geo engineering. Plus unlimited energy does not mean that people would use it where it is not needed and the need would not increase by that much.

  • USSSkipjack

    This is so stupid for so many reasons. If we had unlimited energy, we could also use it to counter act any warming with otherwise expensive geo engineering. Plus unlimited energy does not mean that people would use it where it is not needed and the need would not increase by that much.

  • Curbina

    This argument is as old as the debate about alleged “free energy” technology. And as all technology, the results is responsibility of the users of the technology rather than from the technology itself.

    • bachcole

      You mean like guns don’t kill people, people do. (:->)

      • Curbina

        A hammer can be used for building houses and for destroying anything. Is the hammer evil?

  • Curbina

    This argument is as old as the debate about alleged “free energy” technology. And as all technology, the results is responsibility of the users of the technology rather than from the technology itself.

    • bachcole

      You mean like guns don’t kill people, people do. (:->)

      • Curbina

        A hammer can be used for building houses and for destroying anything. Is the hammer evil?

  • Chris I

    This guy is totally incompetent. It’s far easier tor excessive ingestion of potable water to kill a person.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I thought that was one of his points. All that free energy producing potable water for the worlds population, people who never had abundant clean water will drink themselves to death, they are poor and ignorant. They will not be able to resist, or restrain themselves, oh the horror!

      • What happens to our world if we DONT take forward an alternative energy that is safe and clean? Certain death to all life on our planet from Carbon Dioxide Poisoning, Global Warming and Nuclear Radiation.

        Please feel free to debate me on this one because obviously I have given this much thought myself as well.

        I did some research and found out that heat disappears in the atmosphere / space so that should not be much of a problem (?)

        I have also thought about how we can reverse global warming (man made). We could create huge desalination projects from Sea Water and Green The Deserts. Hemp is a good candidate as it is a superior material for clothes, houses, cosmetics, substitute for plastics etc – also hemp grows extremely fast.

        CO2 is poison for humans but Food for the Hemp – And there is a lot of prime real estate in the deforested areas of our planet.

        We also know that population decreases when living quality increases such as in many parts of the western world – so if we made the world slightly more equal there might be a reversal to the population growth as well. (nature is otherwise very efficient in sorting that out itself)

        Of course we should not waste energy – we need to continue developing more efficient technology. Especially TRANSPORTATION. Nano Technology will probably make extreme changes to power consumption.

        Our society today is wasteful because our economical models incentives wasting resources. That needs to change. We have to live in balance with nature and each other.

        Radioactive substances can not be allowed to build up in nature and food over long periods of time – it could be the end of all of us. People speak about Clean Coal and these other technologies. Maybe it can make a difference but in the long run we need to secure the survival of ours and others species and to do that we need to spread out in the universe – I doubt coal will go along way as a intergalatic space fuel.

        I will finish my rant with a question:
        If we do not change our ways we will certainly destroy our planet so why show such resistance to our best current alternative for solving most of our problems?

        I SERIOUSLY WANT TO KNOW

        • Christopher Calder

          “CO2 is poison for humans but Food for the Hemp”

          Human bodies are made primarily with CO2 and water. Humans create CO2 and and exhale it. Humans eat foods grown with CO2. Carbon is essential to life and we are all carbon based life forms, as is all life on Earth. If carbon is a toxin, then we ourselves and all life is toxic. It makes no sense to brand the basis of life as the enemy of life. Water vapour is the prime greenhouse gas, and water vapour is 25 times more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2. If we really wanted to make the Earth cooler, we would have to ban water.

          Hemp is good for making rope, but has a negative influence on the human thought process. Marijuana makes people see, hear, and think things that do not exist, and causes a permanent drop in IQ when inhaled by young people with growing brains.

          • So you’re basically saying that we should not mind CO2 pollution but rather ban using water?

            Are you for real?

            May I ask you, If I burn lots of fossil fuel and then funnel the CO2 into my apartment and release it there, would that not be very harmful to me, like smoking lots and lots of cigarettes?

            I can agree that its not healthy to smoke neither Cannabis nor Nicotine but is there any logic of taking that into this discussion? Alcohol is neither not good for young people developing their brains but it is a completely different subject.

            If Hemp eats CO2 and that cuts down green house gases and produces oxygen, would the air not get much cleaner on our planet if we planted millions of millions of hemp trees throughout the deserts?

          • Ophelia Rump

            Actually cannabis cures cancer. Weed smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than non-smokers. It turns on the mechanism for cell death in mutated cells, which the cancer disables. It does more than just keep you from puking from the chemo.

          • There is other ways of consuming Cannabis such as f,ex eating it or drinking it but we are loosing track of the issue here.

            I did some research on the internet about CO2 being poison or not. It turns out it is not a poison unless you bread extreme quantities of it.

            But – when we release CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuel there is another gas called Carbon Monoxide released that is poisonous.

            I guess its a questions of definitions – do you agree Chrisopher?

          • Alain Samoun

            I don’t think that Christopher is going to agree with you Dr.Bob: In his zeal to defend the polluters with the help of his friend Patrick Moore he is making a few mistakes, like confusing carbon and carbon dioxide and the poisonous effect of CO2 gas for our specie with its consuming by the plants.

          • Christopher Calder

            You mean defend the evil polluters who are keeping you, your family, your pets, your nation, your civilization all alive? If we stopped drilling for oil today we would all quickly starve to death. We have hope that LENR and simplified hot fusion reactors will some day supply all our energy needs, thus reducing pollution, but at this moment there is no alternative to oil.

            We need a calm, adult, nuanced attitude that does not make simplistic judgments. If Greenpeace ran the USA, the USA would die of hunger. FOOD EQUALS ENERGY & ENERGY EQUALS FOOD. Oil not only feeds us, it created us. You, I, none of us would have even been born without oil. There would be no high technology, no airplanes, no sophisticated electronics, no modern medicine. We need to stop parroting what environmental groups say without looking into what they are saying with a critical eye. Look before you leap, and do not cut off your own food supply if you care anything about the human race and your own life.

          • hempenearth

            Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on plant based oils.

          • Omega Z

            However, NASA authored a study that says if we used every last blade of grass, It would only replace 30% of today’s Oil use. Excuse me 31%. Fossil stocks are used for far more then most realize. They aren’t going away, Just diminished.

          • Alain Samoun

            “We need a calm, adult, nuanced attitude”
            Agree maybe you can start by stopping insulting Greenpeace members and consider that they maybe have something positive to say in the discussion.

          • If GreenPeace ran the USA, everyone would die of hunger…
            Well I do not necessarily think that is true

            Lets not over romanticize the importance of oil because its a finite resource and the industry creates a lot of problems around the world

            We could have made transitions long ago I think and we could all be living in a more equal and secure society where the air was clean to bread

          • Ophelia Rump

            Plants grow better with higher levels of CO2, so the gas is actually a regulatory mechanism for the Earth. High CO2 leads to plant growth leads to oxygen production. All you need to do is stop pumping it up before all the solid frozen CO2 in the oceans thaws. If that happens, learn to swim. There won’t be much land left on this planet.

          • Omega Z

            Dr.
            Forget the deserts. Just reclaim the lost farm land.
            Sand is not a good medium for growing most things & you’ll just be eliminating desert species. Plant & Animal.

          • No No,
            I believe its doable and that its the right thing to do
            It would lead to many good benefits if we did

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes, the human to hemp ratio on this planet is all out of whack. We should all be required to grow twice the quantity we could possibly consume.

          • hempenearth

            Hemp seed is a top quality food, high in Omega 3 essential fatty acids (good for reducing heart disease);
            Hemp hurd makes particleboard 2-3 times stronger that particleboard made from pine;
            Hemp bast fibre is the strongest natural fibre on earth used for making car parts, surf boards, fabrics and yes, rope;
            Hemp has a myriad of other uses including as a medicine.
            The problem has been the propoganda and lies spread by William Randolph Hearst and the politicians who went along with those lies,

          • Ophelia Rump

            Don’t drink the kool-aid. It does not lower IQ. It is not proven to rewire brains in anyone. It is not a hallucinogenic, it is not an opioid.

            It is a euphorigenic. You cannot overdose and die either, it is not a narcotic, it works on an entirely different area of the brain from opioids, the cannibinoid system of the brain. Man and cannabis share a symbiotic relationship as old as mankind. Until the early 1900s it was the primary medication for almost every ailment, when it was pushed out by the medical industry and replaced by carters little liver pills and a plethora of other scientific creations which did little or nothing, and in many cases great harm. The tradition of killing patients with synthetic replacements for natural remedies which worked, has continued to this day, along with the ever growing list of horrendous side effects.

          • bachcole

            It is tamasic, which it means that it degrades people spiritually, just like alcohol.

          • georgehants

            I always feel much more spiritual after a glass of good red wine.

          • Omega Z

            You cannot overdose and die
            Yes you can.

          • bachcole

            I am not worried about people dying. I am worried about people becoming paranoid and/or passive and clouded. It is tamasic, which means that it degrades people spiritually, just like alcohol.

            If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose whether I thought alcohol or marijuana was better for the human spirit and body, I would have to admit that marijuana was better.

            I wish to reiterate my point that no one responded to. There are many excellent herbs and spices that are anti-carcinogenic. Turmeric may be the best. But turmeric and all of the others that legitimate herbalists use don’t get people loaded. The only reason that medicinal pot became an issue is because people like to get loaded, and never mind the after affects. I don’t see any turmeric clinics popping up all over the country. But my personal experience shows that turmeric is a panacea, a God-send.

          • Omega Z

            Agreed, Remove the THC & they no longer have interest in it even tho the medically beneficial compounds are still there.
            They don’t use it medically, They just want to get buzzzed.

          • Omega Z

            Water to vapor when it absorbs heat flows to the upper atmosphere. Releasing that heat when it forms back into water attached to dust particles. The heat escapes into space. The water drops back to earth starting the cycle all over again. Earths own little absorption chiller. Water vapor is an aerosol. As it rises, it also reflects sunlight back out into space.

            As some have latched onto the aerosol reflective effect, Warming alarmists are now starting to claim the aerosol effect may have been overly exaggerated for fear of losing some of their arguments. They’ve recently been saying it might hold more heat in then reflected out. They seem to be trying to halve it’s effect to benefit their argument.

            They also have a lot of CO2 unaccounted for. They’ve argued it must ALL be being absorbing into the Oceans. Based on their belief that Mature Forests(Trees) absorb little CO2. I wonder what they have to say to the most recent report. Not only do mature trees continue absorbing CO2 as do younger trees, They seem to do so at an accelerated rate.
            As to the above, it appears Nature has it’s own checks & balances.

            They’ve also started taking defensive action against the CO2 is plant food. Yes, The plants grow bigger, better & faster, but with less nutrition. There is zero evidence of that. It sure wasn’t an issue with the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were much higher & oxygen was also at higher levels due to the gagantuan plants.

            It appears when Billion$ in funding are at stake, The 1st thing they throw out is truth. Maybe removing the funding can bring the truth back. But that don’t fit with the political agenda.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You sir are an alarmist. The planet will not die, no matter how hard we try to kill it.
          It is even doubtful that man will become totally extinct we have a remarkable resistance to it. Those few who remain may even be happier living in a cannabis monoculture.

  • Chris, Italy

    This guy is ludicrously incompetent. It’s far easier for excessive ingestion of potable water to kill a person.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I thought that was one of his points. All that free energy producing potable water for the worlds population, people who never had abundant clean water will drink themselves to death, they are poor and ignorant. They will not be able to resist, oh the horror!

      It is just to powerful to be within reach of the public, it must be metered to save the poor.

  • bachcole

    “I guess that might be enough to raise global temperatures a bit. But it
    it did, use some of that cheap energy to suck CO2 out of the
    atmosphere. Then any excess heat would be radiated away.” NO it wouldn’t. All of the plants and animals in the world, including us, would die. Both plants and animals need CO2, and in fact we are at the very lowest CO2 level that we can survive, 150 ppm being about as low as we can go. We need to get up to about 1,000 ppm. We have recently risen to about 400 ppm, a good thing in my opinion.

    You have been brainwashed by the CO2 hysterians. We NEED CO2 and we would DIE without it. Human beings cannot breath without it. If we wanted to lower the impact that the Sun has on global temperature, we would have to sequester H2O, which seems to be even stupider to me than sequestering CO2.

  • Blah43

    Duh, just use all that free energy to refrigerate the heat;-)

  • Blah43

    Duh, just use all that free energy to refrigerate the heat;-)

    • Ophelia Rump

      That may be exactly the approach which the Phonon Energy team is taking toward LENR.

      Direct production of Cold from a LENR reaction.
      Refrigerating Phonons

      Multi-phonon-assisted absorption and emission in … – arXiv
      http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1693.pdf

      Phonon-drag low temperature thermoelectric refrigeration
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0011227579900043

    • Ophelia Rump

      Ordinary refrigeration generates more heat in the transfer of heat from where you do not want it. So using compressor driven refrigeration would be counter productive, but there are other forms of refrigeration including sound, and light.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Free Energy doesn’t kill planets, people do.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Free Energy doesn’t kill planets, people do.

  • Job001

    It is admirable that someone is considering “unintended consequences”, even if they haven’t done science or engineering. It also may be good to consider the absurd arguments that are inevitable due to the exceptional “funding bias” wherein the good ole USA now pumps more oil than the Saudis.
    With those caveats in mind, of course it is a ridiculous hobgoblin.
    Capital cost will dictate a not ridiculous efficiency on the actual energy use. This is because the capital cost includes not just the LENR electrical generation, but the LENR reactor and controls, safety features, and waste heat dissipation equipment.
    Any process below 10% efficient will rapidly start costing much more capital in total, IMO, due to waste heat handling and increased safety controls. Additionally, think about it, your wife/husband and neighbors will rapidly object if you wish to put a big cooling tower in your back yard. 😉
    All that said, these things will be well researched, engineered, UL certified, insured, leased, and undoubtedly they will be safety regulated.
    Really, no need exists to get unduly excited.
    What is refreshing is to worry about something happening rather than nothing happening!

    • Ophelia Rump

      This may just be the opening shot in a new offensive. Never underestimate the power of stupid, it is the most abundant resource in the universe. Stupid, it’s not just for the ignorant and uneducated.

  • What happens to our world if we DONT take forward an alternative energy that is safe and clean? Certain death to all life on our planet from Carbon Dioxide Poisoning, Global Warming and Nuclear Radiation.

    Please feel free to debate me on this one because obviously I have given this much thought myself as well.

    I did some research and found out that heat disappears in the atmosphere / space so that should not be much of a problem (?)

    I have also thought about how we can reverse global warming (man made). We could create huge desalination projects from Sea Water and Green The Deserts. Hemp is a good candidate as it is a superior material for clothes, houses, cosmetics, substitute for plastics etc – also hemp grows extremely fast.

    CO2 is poison for humans but Food for the Hemp – And there is a lot of prime real estate in the deforested areas of our planet.

    We also know that population decreases when living quality increases such as in many parts of the western world – so if we made the world slightly more equal there might be a reversal to the population growth as well. (nature is otherwise very efficient in sorting that out itself)

    Of course we should not waste energy – we need to continue developing more efficient technology. Especially TRANSPORTATION. Nano Technology will probably make extreme changes to power consumption.

    Our society today is wasteful because our economical models incentives wasting resources. That needs to change. We have to live in balance with nature and each other.

    Radioactive substances can not be allowed to build up in nature and food over long periods of time – it could be the end of all of us. People speak about Clean Coal and these other technologies. Maybe it can make a difference but in the long run we need to secure the survival of ours and others species and to do that we need to spread out in the universe – I doubt coal will go along way as a intergalatic space fuel.

    I will finish my rant with a question:
    If we do not change our ways we will certainly destroy our planet so why show such resistance to our best current alternative for solving most of our problems?

    I SERIOUSLY WANT TO KNOW

    • “CO2 is poison for humans but Food for the Hemp”

      Human bodies are made primarily with CO2 and water. Humans create CO2 and and exhale it. Humans eat foods grown with CO2. Carbon is essential to life and we are all carbon based life forms, as is all life on Earth. If carbon is a toxin, then we ourselves and all life is toxic. It makes no sense to brand the basis of life as the enemy of life. Water vapour is the prime greenhouse gas, and water vapour is 25 times more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2. If we really wanted to make the Earth cooler, we would have to ban water.

      Hemp is good for making rope, but has a negative influence on the human thought process. Marijuana makes people see, hear, and think things that do not exist, and causes a permanent drop in IQ when inhaled by young people with growing brains.

      • So you’re basically saying that we should not mind CO2 pollution but rather ban using water?

        Are you for real?

        May I ask you, If I burn lots of fossil fuel and then funnel the CO2 into my apartment and release it there, would that not be very harmful to me, like smoking lots and lots of cigarettes?

        I can agree that its not healthy to smoke neither Cannabis nor Nicotine but is there any logic of taking that into this discussion? Alcohol is neither not good for young people developing their brains but it is a completely different topic.

        If Hemp eats CO2 and that cuts down green house gases and produces oxygen, would the air not get much cleaner on our planet if we planted millions of millions of hemp trees throughout the deserts?

        • Ophelia Rump

          Actually cannabis cures cancer. Weed smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than non-smokers. It turns on the mechanism for cell death in mutated cells, which the cancer disables. It does more than just keep you from puking from the chemo.

          Let me ask you a question: How did man survive all those millennia without modern medicine?

          Hint Hint Hint. C______s is a drugstore in a single plant.

          • There is other ways of consuming Cannabis such as f,ex eating it or drinking it but we are loosing track of the issue here.

            I did some research on the internet about CO2 being poison or not. It turns out it is not a poison unless you bread extreme quantities of it.

            But – when we release CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuel there is also another gas called Carbon Monoxide released that is poisonous.

          • Alain Samoun

            I don’t think that Christopher is going to agree with you Dr.Bob: In his zeal to defend the polluters with the help of his friend Patrick Moore he is making a few mistakes, like confusing carbon and carbon dioxide and the poisonous effect of CO2 gas for our specie with its consuming by the plants.

          • You mean defend the evil polluters who are keeping you, your family, your pets, your nation, your civilization all alive? If we stopped drilling for oil today we would all quickly starve to death. We have hope that LENR and simplified hot fusion reactors will some day supply all our energy needs, thus reducing pollution, but at this moment there is no alternative to oil.

            We need a calm, adult, nuanced attitude that does not make simplistic judgments. If Greenpeace ran the USA, the USA would die of hunger. FOOD EQUALS ENERGY & ENERGY EQUALS FOOD. Oil not only feeds us, it created us. You, I, none of us would have even been born without oil. There would be no high technology, no airplanes, no sophisticated electronics, no modern medicine. We need to stop parroting what environmental groups say without looking into what they are saying with a critical eye. Look before you leap, and do not cut off your own food supply if you care anything about the human race and your own life.

          • Mats

            Arr you real of just Ali from Venice ?

          • hempenearth

            Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on plant based oils.

          • Omega Z

            However, NASA authored a study that says if we used every last blade of grass, It would only replace 30% of today’s Oil use. Excuse me 31%. Fossil stocks are used for far more then most realize. They aren’t going away, Just diminished.

          • Alain Samoun

            “We need a calm, adult, nuanced attitude”
            Agree maybe you can start by stopping insulting Greenpeace members and consider that they maybe have something positive to say in the discussion.

          • If GreenPeace ran the USA, everyone would die of hunger…
            Well I do not necessarily think that is true

            I do not want to over romanticize the importance of oil because its a finite resource and the industry creates a lot of problems around the world

            We could have made transitions long ago I think and we could all be living in a more equal and secure society where the air was clean to bread

          • bachcole

            Why is it that greenhouse owners like their greenhouses to be at about 1200 ppm CO2? Cannabis greenhouses are kept at about 1000 ppm CO2. I don’t hear that the workers in those greenhouses are sick and/or miserable. You cannot breath unconsciously without CO2. This is why people who have anxiety attacks breath in-and-out of paper bags. The higher levels of CO2 is calming. I don’t recommend taking that to the extreme, unless one is a skeptopath and then I don’t mind. Just kidding. (:->)

          • Alain Samoun

            “higher levels of CO2 is calming”
            So calming that it will put you to sleep for good,I will recommend NO2 instead, it is also dangerous for your health but at least it will make you laugh.

          • bachcole

            Alain, you are being deliberately daft. Obviously too much CO2 is bad for people. But why does breathing into and out of a paper bag calm anxiety attacks? Or are you so enjoying your freak-out about global warming that you are unable to listen to the PERFECTLY reasoned arguments as I have presented.

            I can’t stand blankets, sheets, or pillows close to my nose while I sleep and I prefer the windows open because I demand/want fresh air. But I can still reason and don’t let my agendas get in the way of my thinking clearly.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Plants grow better with higher levels of CO2, so the gas is actually a regulatory mechanism for the Earth. High CO2 leads to plant growth leads to oxygen production. All you need to do is stop pumping it up before all the solid frozen CO2 in the oceans thaws. If that happens, learn to swim. There won’t be much land left on this planet.

          • bachcole

            There are many, many anti-cancer herbs, like starting with turmeric/curcumin. But you only hear about the one that gets people loaded. I discourage cannabis usage since it is tamasic. If you want to know what tamasic is, look it up.

        • bachcole

          Let us not all be idiotic. Everything needs to be in balance, including CO2 and H2O. Greenhouse owners like to keep their CO2 at about 1200 ppm. Obviously, if you go to high, that would be bad. Many of us think, including me, that we are too low at 400 ppm.

          But no one likes other pollutants. So arguing about CO2 is sort of an exercise in ego: completely pointless. We should all be pushing LENR and stop jerking off our egos about CO2.

        • Omega Z

          Dr.
          Forget the deserts. Just reclaim the lost farm land.
          Sand is not a good medium for growing most things & you’ll just be eliminating desert species. Plant & Animal.

          • No No,
            I believe its doable and that its the right thing to do
            It would lead to many good benefits if we did

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yes, the human to hemp ratio on this planet is all out of whack. We should all be required to grow twice the quantity we could possibly consume.

      • hempenearth

        Hemp seed is a top quality food, high in Omega 3 essential fatty acids (good for reducing heart disease);
        Hemp hurd makes particleboard 2-3 times stronger that particleboard made from pine;
        Hemp bast fibre is the strongest natural fibre on earth used for making car parts, surf boards, fabrics and yes, rope;
        Hemp has a myriad of other uses including as a medicine.
        The problem has been the propoganda and lies spread by William Randolph Hearst and the politicians who went along with those lies,

      • Ophelia Rump

        Don’t drink the kool-aid. It does not lower IQ. It is not proven to rewire brains in anyone. It is not a hallucinogenic, it is not an opioid, and it is not addictive.

        It is a euphorigenic. You cannot overdose and die either, it is not a narcotic, it works on an entirely different area of the brain from opioids, the cannibinoid system of the brain which does not regulate either breathing or heart beat.

        Man and cannabis share a symbiotic relationship as old as mankind. Until the early 1900s it was the primary medication for almost every ailment, when it was pushed out by the medical industry and replaced by carters little liver pills and a plethora of other scientific creations which did little or nothing, and in many cases great harm. The tradition of killing patients with synthetic replacements for natural remedies which worked, has continued to this day, along with the ever growing list of horrendous side effects.

        You may believe that Aspirin was a wonderful human invention, actually it is a synthetic replacement for the inner bark of the willow tree collected in the spring. It has the advantage that it does not burn a hole in your stomach, because it turns to aspirin after entering into your bloodstream. It is also about 100 times more effective than the pill form at relieving pain. I know this from experience.

        • bachcole

          It is tamasic, which it means that it degrades people spiritually, just like alcohol.

          • georgehants

            I always feel much more spiritual after a glass of good red wine.

        • Omega Z

          You cannot overdose and die
          Yes you can.

          • bachcole

            I am not worried about people dying. I am worried about people becoming paranoid and/or passive and clouded. It is tamasic, which means that it degrades people spiritually, just like alcohol.

            If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose whether I thought alcohol or marijuana was better for the human spirit and body, I would have to admit that marijuana was better.

            I wish to reiterate my point that no one responded to. There are many excellent herbs and spices that are anti-carcinogenic. Turmeric may be the best. But turmeric and all of the others that legitimate herbalists use don’t get people loaded. The only reason that medicinal pot became an issue is because people like to get loaded, and never mind the after affects. I don’t see any turmeric clinics popping up all over the country. But my personal experience shows that turmeric is a panacea, a God-send.

          • Omega Z

            Agreed, Remove the THC & they no longer have interest in it even tho the medically beneficial compounds are still there.
            They don’t use it medically, They just want to get buzzzed.

          • bachcole

            Close. I know that the individual person wants medical marijuana because it works. But the reason that it is out there as a primary choice is because people get loaded off of it. They never hear about how GREAT turmeric/curcumin is, so it is not a choice.

            Also, another reason that medical marijuana is most people’s only choice (other than pharmaceuticals, which basically suck) is that marijuana is forbidden. Turmeric/curcumin is not forbidden. I supposed turmeric/curcumin has the potential to become forbidden if it were to become popular enough to threaten the pharmaceutical giants.

      • joe

        The by-products of burning fossil fuels such as heavy metals and unburned hydrocarbons… Smoke that causes respiratory diseases and kills people and brain damage in infants. Not CO2. There are some good papers on this from W.H.O.

      • Omega Z

        Water to vapor when it absorbs heat flows to the upper atmosphere. Releasing that heat when it forms back into water attached to dust particles. The heat escapes into space. The water drops back to earth starting the cycle all over again. Earths own little absorption chiller. Water vapor is an aerosol. As it rises, it also reflects sunlight back out into space.

        As some have latched onto the aerosol reflective effect, Warming alarmists are now starting to claim the aerosol effect may have been overly exaggerated for fear of losing some of their arguments. They’ve recently been saying it might hold more heat in then reflected out. They seem to be trying to halve it’s effect to benefit their argument.

        They also have a lot of CO2 unaccounted for. They’ve argued it must ALL be being absorbing into the Oceans. Based on their belief that Mature Forests(Trees) absorb little CO2. I wonder what they have to say to the most recent report. Not only do mature trees continue absorbing CO2 as do younger trees, They seem to do so at an accelerated rate.
        As to the above, it appears Nature has it’s own checks & balances.

        They’ve also started taking defensive action against the CO2 is plant food. Yes, The plants grow bigger, better & faster, but with less nutrition. There is zero evidence of that. It sure wasn’t an issue with the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were much higher & oxygen was also at higher levels due to the gagantuan plants.

        It appears when Billion$ in funding are at stake, The 1st thing they throw out is truth. Maybe removing the funding can bring the truth back. But that don’t fit with the political agenda.

    • Ophelia Rump

      You sir are an alarmist. The planet will not die, no matter how hard we try to kill it.
      It is even doubtful that man will become totally extinct, we have a remarkable resistance to it. Those few who remain may even be happier living in a cannabis monoculture.

      What on earth makes you think that it is preferable for “Modern Civilization” to be allowed to continue it’s current path of destruction? We approach the point where this civilization must prove through action that it deserves to survive, or perish. Should it perish, then that is for the best.

    • bachcole

      We will change our ways when we change our minds, and people would rather die than change their minds.

  • Frechette

    Just keep free energy out of the hands of the imbecilic masses. Right, just let them starve. Is this clown for real or what?

  • Linda

    “Imbecilic Masses”? Who is this person? This is the way sociopathic Elites talk. Is he an old-economy energy consultant?

    So we should go on trusting the same plutocrats who brought us Global Warming and 100 years of fossil fuel wars – only they know best? Hell no! Capitalism is finished, and we need LENR to help us clean up THEIR mess.

    LENR can and will be used to reverse Global Warming, if it works at all. But it will happen in spite of, not because of guys like this.

    Disrupt away Andrea.

    • bachcole

      North Korea vs. South Korea. Exactly the same culture: sort of authoritarian. Exactly the same weather. Exactly the same language. But what a world of difference.

    • GreenWin

      Unhappily, Off-planet racism? We need to expect this.

    • “This is the way sociopathic Elites talk.”

      Unfortunately there seems to be a ‘tipping point’ somewhere on the path to success, where delusions of grandeur set in and suddenly turn the rest of the herd into an inferior species that needs to be controlled, managed, even culled, at the whim of the wiser, self appointed, elite.

      There are many examples of this, of which Bill Gates is probably the best known, and they all seem to join the same club. The position of the tipping point varies with individuals, and may never be crossed by those with a good internal moral compass, but I get the strong impression that Mike Adams quietly passed this point some time ago.

      • bachcole

        “Since everyone is in spiritual infinity and everyone is identical with this very same spiritual infinity, therefore everyone is first in importance and no one is second. — Meher Baba —

  • Dionysius John

    Aw, c’mon, not this shit already!
    1: The amount of heat that is released by the earth into space is increased when the earth is warmer providing that it is not blocked. Hansen’s 1988 numbers are already failing to provide a good model, for hydrogen alone…
    2: Carbon, methane, increases would effectively cease, so that what small amount of CO2 generated AGW which has taken place to date will fall as CO2 is reabsorbed into the biosphere.
    3: How much of an increase in water vapor will result in runaway GW? Got any hard numbers on this? Doesn’t seem even to have contributed yet….
    Isn’t there anything that can happen which will not generate a plethora of “Chicken Littles” running around warning us about the falling sky….
    4. Yes, a certain class of decision makers will determine it whether or not it will be allowed to be released to the masses no matter WHAT you say
    BUT: if the tech is as easy as it seems, there will be underground clubs springing up to make outlawed, bootlegged versions for the masses! Fuck the PO LEEESE!… and the EPA… and NOAA.. and .. and… and….

    • Omega Z

      Water vapor gives off it’s heat at high levels where it escapes into space. The water becomes rain droplets forming on dust particles cleaning the air. When it hits the hot pavement it rises again causing a cooling cycle effect.
      Natures own little Heat Absorption Chiller & air cleaner.

  • SDX

    If things get a little hot, try this: http://www.weidai.com/black-holes.txt

  • Owen Geiger

    Homegrown produce always tastes better. And if it tastes better, is fresher and has brighter colors, it’s probably healthier for you. Plus you save money and have a healthy hobby. Tip: research forest gardens.

    • Omega Z

      I have to disagree with his assessment.
      To begin, It is Cheaper energy then we have at present. Not Free.
      The device to produce that energy is not free or cheap. It will be comparable to what exists. Waste equals cost. If I waste, I need more E-cats which means more cost. Cost requires remediation.

      Because of this, People will still want efficient devices. Low wattage TV’s, Computers, Lights, Refrigerators Whatever, Do you want to purchase/invest in 1 or 2 E-cats or 7 or 8. The incentive to conserve is still there.

      Even if the energy was free-
      Ever been in a well insulated home. No matter where you set, the temperature is even. It’s comfortable. Try a house without Insulation. No matter what you set the thermostat at. It has warm zones & cool zones. Seldom is it comfortable. Front side warm & freezing you azz off. People spend large sums of money for zone control heat. People like to be comfortable. Higher temps when just sitting & lower temps in rooms where you active.

      And what If they devise a way to directly convert this to electricity. Bypassing the heat phase as we know it & at high efficiency.
      Presently, we use 3 units of heat for 1 unit electric. What if that were halved or more. We have less heat. Direct heat to cooling would be more efficient then heat-Electric to heat/cooling. And we already use heat for warmth in the winter so nothing changes there.

      It’s all economics & the economics will still keep things in check even for those who tend to be frivolous. I think his view is in the nature of 1st thoughts, And not thoroughly thought through. Whoo. Say that 5 times real fast. 🙂

      • Omega Z

        Some people have a natural hate of humanity & would like to see us eliminated. Because We interfere with nature. They don’t seem to comprehend that we are in fact, a part of nature. Eliminating us is interference in & of itself.

  • Julian Becker

    I have not read all the comments and maybe it has been said here, but the amount of heat the planet receives every second from the sun is much more that can be created by LENR. And a lot of this energy gets radiated back into the cosmos. I guess the same would happen with heat created though LENR. So I guess it is no concern….

    • Ophelia Rump

      Humanity can abuse anything to the point where it becomes a concern. That does not make everything a threat to life on the planet. That title is reserved for mankind itself.

  • Julian Becker

    I have not read all the comments and maybe it has been said here, but the amount of heat the planet receives every second from the sun is much more that can be created by LENR. And a lot of this energy gets radiated back into the cosmos. I guess the same would happen with heat created though LENR. So I guess it is no concern….

    • Ophelia Rump

      Humanity can abuse anything to the point where it becomes a concern. That does not make everything a threat to life on the planet. That title is reserved for mankind itself.

  • simon@syd

    I think Julian’s comment is on the mark.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Let’s go back to burning whale oil.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That smelled bad, and other undesirable things.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Let’s go back to burning whale oil.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That smelled bad, and other undesirable things.

  • BroKeeper

    I never
    thought a facetious comment like the one I made nearly a year ago would be taken
    seriously today: “Imagine future headlines: ‘Excessive Heat from Billions
    of E-Cats Causing Global Warming?’ ”

    I really cannot
    conceive enough excessive heat being released to cause a rise of the earth’s
    temperatures, perhaps a little warmer in cities which wouldn’t be so bad in the
    winter time.

    The more efficient heat to electrical and mechanical energy
    transferences become the less unintended raw heat will be released. If nothing else, clean fuel will rid of any heat
    trapping carbon canopy that exists and allow it to dissipate quicker into the
    stratosphere and outer space. It is the
    misuse of such power that concerns me. Hopefully
    the benefits will far outweigh the human follies

    • Leonard Weinstein

      If the average temperature of the Earth increased 0.1 degree C, the INCREASED radiation to space would be 1.9E19 J/day. Looking at Hector McNuget’s issue of 4.3E17 J/day from 1 billion ecats, it is clear that the temperature increase due to the added waste heating would not even approach increasing the atmosphere 0.1 degree C, since increased radiation cooling would prevent it. In fact, the new equilibrium average temperature would only increase by about 0.003 degrees C to eliminate the 1 billion 5 kW e cats power.

  • Brokeeper

    I never thought a facetious comment like the one I made nearly a year ago would be taken
    seriously today: “Imagine future headlines: ‘Excessive Heat from Billions of E-Cats Causing Global Warming?’ ”
    I really cannot conceive enough excessive heat being released to cause a rise of the earth’s
    temperatures, perhaps a little warmer in cities which wouldn’t be so bad in the winter time.
    The more efficient heat to electrical and mechanical energy transferences become the less unintended raw heat will be released. If nothing else, clean fuel will rid of any heat trapping carbon canopy that exists and allow it to dissipate quicker into the stratosphere and outer space. It is the misuse of such power that concerns me. Hopefully the benefits will far outweigh the human follies.

    • I remember your comment. It’s the first thing I thought of when I clicked through to Mike’s website. Gotta say I’m a little surprised. Mike has a lot of controversial content, but usually it’s well considered and worth reading. Technologies are created to solve problems, and every new technology creates new problems, for which more new technologies are created to solve. If E-Cats or whatever dump lots of excess heat into the environment, it will become a problem and if there’s money in it or a crisis to avert, then somebody will create something to solve it. We will always have “Chicken Little” people running around squawking that the sky is falling. Sometimes they are right, often they are wrong. Life is full of risks. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Gimme a few minutes, I’m sure I can come up with a few dozen more trite but true sayings to lob Chicken Little’s way.

    • Hector McNuget

      Yes! electrical+mechanical energy is not make dissipate in heat. Academic lies.

      But! 1 billion ecats, 5kW units, = 4.3E17 Jouls a day

      Atmosphere mass = 5E18 kg
      specific heat cap. c = 1.0 J/g deg C

      E = mc delta T

      delta T = 0.1 deg C per day. Uh-oh. Maybe is make better 1kW ecats. Not so big deal – bigger Celsius = smaller bikinis.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      If the average temperature of the Earth increased 0.1 degree C, the INCREASED radiation to space would be 1.9E19 J/day. Looking at Hector McNuget’s issue of 4.3E17 J/day from 1 billion ecats, it is clear that the temperature increase due to the added waste heating would not even approach increasing the atmosphere 0.1 degree C, since increased radiation cooling would prevent it. In fact, the new equilibrium average temperature would only increase by about 0.003 degrees C to eliminate the 1 billion 5 kW e cats power.

      • bachcole

        Could you repeat that so that some of us sub-mensa dummies can understand it? Use shorter and fewer words.

  • George N

    With unlimited energy, wouldn’t we be able to just cool down the exhaust? We probubly have the technology today to do this – Mitsubishi sells fully indoor AC units that have no duct work. This warning about free energy reminds me about how all the smart people in 16th century England warned about the kingdom growing too fast because they would run out of food and starve. Turns out the exact opposite happened, England was forced to import food which led to their prominent merchant marine industry, which allowed them to be the biggest empire the work had ever seen at the time. The point being, there are always pessimists in the face of opportunities, but human liberty always seems to overcome challenges that benefit society as a whole.

  • Omega Z

    I have to disagree with his assessment.
    To begin, It is Cheaper energy then we have at present. Not Free.
    The device to produce that energy is not free or cheap. It will be comparable to what exists. Waste equals cost. If I waste, I need more E-cats which means more cost. Cost requires remediation.

    Because of this, People will still want efficient devices. Low wattage TV’s, Computers, Lights, Refrigerators Whatever, Do you want to purchase/invest in 1 or 2 E-cats or 7 or 8. The incentive to conserve is still there.

    Even if the energy was free-
    Ever been in a well insulated home. No matter where you set, the temperature is even. It’s comfortable. Try a house without Insulation. No matter what you set the thermostat at. It has warm zones & cool zones. Seldom is it comfortable. Front side warm & freezing you azz off. People spend large sums of money for zone control heat. People like to be comfortable. Higher temps when just sitting & lower temps in rooms where you active.

    And what If they devise a way to directly convert this to electricity. Bypassing the heat phase as we know it & at high efficiency.
    Presently, we use 3 units of heat for 1 unit electric. What if that were halved or more. We have less heat. Direct heat to cooling would be more efficient then heat-Electric to heat/cooling. And we already use heat for warmth in the winter so nothing changes there.

    It’s all economics & the economics will still keep things in check even for those who tend to be frivolous. I think his view is in the nature of 1st thoughts, And not thoroughly thought through. Whoo. Say that 5 times real fast. 🙂

  • Omega Z

    Water vapor gives off it’s heat at high levels where it escapes into space. The water becomes rain droplets forming on dust particles cleaning the air. When it hits the hot pavement it rises again causing a cooling cycle effect.
    Natures own little Heat Absorption Chiller & air cleaner.

  • GreenWin

    Unhappily, Off-planet racism? We need to expect this.

  • GreenWin

    A good, lively discussion metaphorically asking: “Is there more light than darkness? Is the glass half full?” Misanthropes and Malthusians (and Richard Dawkins) are convinced “There is not enough.” And so with studied sorrow, we must throw the “weak” from the lifeboat. This, to satisfy the fossil-deficient Darwinian theory of “survival.” Britannica is a curious culture. It defends it’s heroic minds, Newton, Darwin, Maxwell etc. yet fails to reconcile its greatest philosopher:

    “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    • Fortyniner

      Behind all such lofty rhetoric there is one simple ape-man idea: “fewer people means more for me”.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin do not put forward Evidence on the crazy religious belief that science has in Darwinian evolution, you will have the holy priests putting curses on you.

  • GreenWin

    A good, lively discussion metaphorically asking: “Is there more light than darkness? Is the glass half full?” Misanthropes and Malthusians (and Richard Dawkins) are convinced “There is not enough.” And so with studied sorrow, we must throw the “weak” from the lifeboat. This, to satisfy the fossil-deficient Darwinian theory of “survival.” Britannica is a curious culture. It defends it’s heroic minds, Newton, Darwin, Maxwell etc. yet fails to reconcile its greatest philosopher:

    “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    • Behind all such lofty rhetoric there is one simple ape-man idea: “fewer people means more for me”.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin do not put forward Evidence on the crazy religious belief that science has in Darwinian evolution, you will have the holy priests putting curses on you.

  • Dods

    Whilst searching for news yesterday on the 3D Micro Printer
    which I kickstart backed I came across an article which I think will play a part at some point towards the creation of electrical power coupled with a heat source.

    With economies of scale in play its efficiency must be through the ceiling.

    Imagine hundreds or even thousands of micro turbinesStirling engines all working in parallel close to the heat source.

    The idea of a modular construction with the ability to swap out when needed if failure should occur.

    Interesting times for sure.

    http://www.azom.com/news.aspx?newsID=41847
    http://www.microfabrica.com/

    • Omega Z

      Turbines can be efficient, but they don’t scale down well as to cost.
      I’m of the opinion that 3D printing could quickly close the Gap. Possibly even increasing the efficiency rate.

      Another Area where 3D Micro Printers could be used is with Lonnie Johnson’s JTEC Thermal Electric device.

      And Then it may have applications with MHD technologies.

  • Gordon Docherty

    Well, we can always make more mirrors to reflect the Sun’s rays – after all, that is what the Ice Caps do. In reality, even with “all those e-Cats”, the amount of energy hitting the Earth from the Sun far outweighs anything we produce – and with abundant, cheap energy comes the possibility of moving many activities, including much manufacturing into space, if we do start to worry about heat. Nope, this story is a non-sequitur, as it presumes we won’t be able to capitalize on this technology to actually improve our situation. This sounds more like a “back to the stone-age” argument, which makes no sense given that this would be the surest way to destroy ourselves anyway. One thing is for sure, however. We can’t go on burning fossil fuels as we are.

  • Gordon Docherty

    Well, we can always make more mirrors to reflect the Sun’s rays – after all, that is what the Ice Caps do. In reality, even with “all those e-Cats”, the amount of energy hitting the Earth from the Sun far outweighs anything we produce – and with abundant, cheap energy comes the possibility of moving many activities, including much manufacturing into space, if we do start to worry about heat. Nope, this story is a non-sequitur, as it presumes we won’t be able to capitalize on this technology to actually improve our situation. This sounds more like a “back to the stone-age” argument, which makes no sense given that this would be the surest way to destroy ourselves anyway. One thing is for sure, however. We can’t go on burning fossil fuels as we are.

  • Fortyniner

    Another poke at ‘free energy’ from Mike Adams – this time at the “free energy kooks who live in Bonkersville” who are apparently claiming that physical work can be done without generating heat. He then ‘scientifically’. demolishes this straw man – and of course by implication all free energy advocates, kooks or otherwise.

    “Free energy advocates fail to grasp even basic concepts of thermodynamics, electricity and physical reality”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/045942_free_energy_laws_of_thermodynamics_physical_reality.html

    • georgehants

      Morning Peter, if that is you and not one of those mix-ups on the software.
      You sound miffed.
      You did not keep the details of the guy from Ecuador did you, I may be interested in that, Ha.

      • Fortyniner

        Morning George. I’m only miffed ‘cos I paid good money for my gold transmuter but I still can’t get the damned thing to work. I’ll let you have it at cost…

        • BroKeeper

          Sounds like another 49’r true gold rush (to judgment). hehe.

          • Omega Z

            ->”All sensible estimates put the planetary population as stabilizing at around the 12 billion mark.”
            Outdated:
            Those numbers are being scaled back as we speak by the bean counters. May be reduced by about 3 billion, tho it’s unlikely to become official as this would reduce funding for their population projects.

            ->”if you are really serious about controlling population you should start in the UK, Germany or France”

            Done. We’ll just stop all the poor from other countries from migrating. Most of the developed world would peek in a short time & their populations would decline if not for migrants.

            Note: Japan along with a couple other countries have officially peeked & starting into the decline stage. Many others would be included but for immigrants. Most Population growth is from 3rd world and some developing countries. Even many of those are starting to see a slowing in population growth.

    • Omega Z

      Desalination will be done by some sort of reverse osmosis. It really will be cheaper the flash desalinating even with cheap E-cat energy. Does not require great amounts of heat. One argument down.
      Knows little about how population growth works.
      He’s pretty much clueless about life. What more can be said.

    • BroKeeper

      It sounds he did create the ultimate gold conversion device. 🙂

      • bkrharold

        The idea that LENR could pose a threat is preposterous. Here is the reason. Our climate scientists unanimously agree that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change. They do this by trapping ever greater quantities of heat from the sun. A technology like LENR which produces no greenhouse gas, would be REPLACING devices which produce heat and carbon dioxide. This is bound to be less harmful. LENR could make it possible to use more energy for other applications such as desalination, However the extra heat it produces would be offset by the greenhouse gases that are no longer being produced for all our other energy needs.

        • Ophelia Rump

          If mankind were stupid enough to generate enough waste heat to turn the entire planet into an oven, we would always have the option to turn down the temperature when it starts to get too hot. You cannot do that with green house gases.

          But I think you are correct bkrharold.

        • Omega Z

          Transmutation is not a problem from what we know.
          This is such a tiny amount, that even Governments would find it economically unsuitable for use.

          At best, After many years & huge expense, you would end up with possibly a high grade ore that still needs to go through the conventional refinement process. That’s a lot of bother just to end up back at square 1. Regardless of intent.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Instant civilization. Much evil has been done in it’s name. I would not deny anyone a better life. Neither would I push it upon them with out having done due diligence. It is not enough to speak of providing improvement, when you provide those improvements, you are responsible for the outcome. Is it so wrong to speak of responsibility? Civilization has played the drop and run game many times. One mans Malthusian theory is another mans killing fields.

      • bachcole

        The State of Kerala in southern India has gone on a massive education rampage, and by doing so they have brought down their population growth. The education curriculum was NOT western oriented. I don’t know how they are doing with the prosperity angle, but education seemed to be enough.

        I had a friend from Kerala, a lady named Shyni Dennis, who worked with me remotely at MCI. Her mother wanted to call her “shiny”, so she switched the ‘i’ and the ‘y’, and made it “Shyni”, but it is still pronounced “shiny”. She was descended from those Indian Christians who were converted to Christianity by St. Thomas, the immediate disciple of Jesus, THE “doubting” Thomas.

        If you check out http://www.gapminder.org/world . Select both the X and Y axis to be “children per woman (total fertility)”. Then click “Play”, you will see how the number of children per woman is crashing towards 2 worldwide. This means, according to population scientists, that the world’s population is going to plateau out at around 10 billion. And it will even go down a tad. Although 10 billion is bigger than 7 billion, with LENR, it will be much easier to handle 10 billion than it is now handling 7 billion without LENR.

        So stop fretting, please. I’m not.

  • Another poke at ‘free energy’ from Mike Adams – this time at the “free energy kooks who live in Bonkersville” who are apparently claiming somewhere online that physical work can be done without generating heat (unfortunately no links to comments of this nature by said kooks are provided, although he might be referring to one or two people who commented on his article). He then ‘scientifically’ demolishes this straw man – and of course by implication all free energy advocates, kooks or otherwise, per the title of the article:

    “Free energy advocates fail to grasp even basic concepts of thermodynamics, electricity and physical reality”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/045942_free_energy_laws_of_thermodynamics_physical_reality.html

    More red flags:

    “Theoretically, then, so-called “free energy” technology may very well be developed one day.” In other words it’s not practical now (no matter what you may hear to the contrary) but one day… – a ‘move along, nothing to see here’ line that is used regularly by shills who don’t want to make themselves too obvious.

    “but somehow I find myself having to stick with the physicists on all this while rejecting the kind of delusional thinking that mirrors the cognitive wishiwashyness of unicorns, Leprechauns and tooth fairies.” and “Mostly what you hear from these circles” (ECW?) “is a collection of insane ramblings from people who ate way too many shrooms and now can’t differentiate between fantasy land and reality.” Talk about cliched hot buttons… he’s only missing the term ‘conspiracy theorists’ for a full house. Implication obvious – Science has spoken, free energy is a fantasy. If you believe in the possibility of free/cheap energy you must be loosely wrapped to the point of gibbering and drooling imbecility.

    “When I lived in Ecuador, an American living in a nearby town claimed he had invented a gold transmutation device and offered to sell me the plans for a mere $10,000.” Attempted association of free energy research with an obvious scam.

    Maryyugo, come back – all is forgiven..

    • georgehants

      Morning Peter, if that is you and not one of those mix-ups on the software.
      You sound miffed.
      You did not keep the details of the guy from Ecuador did you, I may be interested in that, Ha.

      • Morning George. I’m only miffed ‘cos I paid good money for my gold transmuter but I still can’t get the damned thing to work. I’ll let you have it at cost…

        • Brokeeper

          Sounds like another 49’r true gold rush (to judgment). hehe.

    • Omega Z

      Desalination will be done by some sort of reverse osmosis. It really will be cheaper the flash desalinating even with cheap E-cat energy. Does not require great amounts of heat. One argument down.
      Knows little about how population growth works.
      He’s pretty much clueless about life. What more can be said.

    • Brokeeper

      It sounds he did create the ultimate gold conversion device. 🙂

  • Omega Z

    To Start. It’s not free energy or anywhere close. The Energy is cheap, but the devices used to produce it will be similar to what exists.
    All the other issues you bring up can be relatively easily remediated. Most if not all have already been studied. Space fairing is an economic issue. Not Technology. With plentiful energy, you can shield negative effects & generating a simulated gravity is well known. In fact, likely all the issues you raise are economic.

  • georgehants

    Will just point out the clearly strange Fact that in the West we do not have a gentle, sensible
    policy of asking people to only have small family’s.
    This of course would be sensible as a social direction for the good of all and the reduction in Energy use and all resources.
    WHY is this not done? ——
    Because corrupt capitalism will collapse or stagnate if there is not a continual growth in populations.
    So all of society can suffer, just to keep the profits rolling in and
    all politicians do what they are told and keep their mouths shut.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      georgehants, you clearly do not look at data before opening your mouth. Almost all reasonably wealthy countries in the West and wealthy countries in the orient (Europe, US, Canada, Japan, etc.) have near zero to negative population growth internally. Only new immigration from poor second and third world countries add significantly to the population. It is poor countries that have excess population growth (Africa, South and Central America, much of Asia, and Middle East).

      • bachcole

        When my wife and I were having a lot of fun, in the back of my mind was not the worry that I would need babies to grow up and support me when I was too old to work. We both knew that Social Security and our own efforts to save and invest would sustain us in our old age.

        Also, because we both had college degrees, we had learned how much fun one can have thinking and reading. Most poor people are uneducated, and the only fun they have in their lives is sex and eating.

  • georgehants

    Just to point out that science does not have a clue as to how much Energy is actually radiated onto the Earth.
    ——-
    PhysOrg
    NASA-funded mission to study the sun’s energy
    On July 14, 2014, a sounding rocket will be ready to launch from
    White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico a little before noon local time.
    Soaring up to 180 miles into Earth’s atmosphere, past the layers that
    can block much of the sun’s high energy light, the Degradation Free
    Spectrometers experiment will have six minutes to observe the extreme
    ultraviolet and soft x-rays streaming from the sun, in order to measure
    the sun’s total energy output, known as irradiance, in these short
    wavelengths.
    The total solar irradiance,
    and to an even greater degree, irradiance at high energy wavelengths is
    known to change over time in conjunction with the sun’s
    approximately-11-year solar cycle. How it changes over longer periods of
    time, however, is less certain – but fairly important if we’re going to
    understand how solar variability affects Earth’s space environment.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-nasa-funded-mission-sun-energy.html

  • georgehants

    Just to point out that science does not have a clue as to how much Energy is actually radiated onto the Earth.
    They also say that it changes, over time, so how would one be able to determine Global Warming without a completely reliable and accurate knowledge of the variable Energy input.
    ——-
    PhysOrg
    NASA-funded mission to study the sun’s energy
    On July 14, 2014, a sounding rocket will be ready to launch from
    White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico a little before noon local time.
    Soaring up to 180 miles into Earth’s atmosphere, past the layers that
    can block much of the sun’s high energy light, the Degradation Free
    Spectrometers experiment will have six minutes to observe the extreme
    ultraviolet and soft x-rays streaming from the sun, in order to measure
    the sun’s total energy output, known as irradiance, in these short
    wavelengths.
    The total solar irradiance, and to an even greater degree, irradiance at high energy wavelengths is known to change over time in conjunction with the sun’s
    approximately-11-year solar cycle. How it changes over longer periods of
    time, however, is less certain – but fairly important if we’re going to
    understand how solar variability affects Earth’s space environment.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-nasa-funded-mission-sun-energy.html

  • Omega Z

    If things stay static. Wont happen. Change is continuous.
    It will take decades to integrate LENR the world over, & it’s likely the changes that comes with it will reduce energy consumption.
    Unless you know of a way to stop all the other technologies in development.

  • Fortyniner

    “This is the way sociopathic Elites talk.”

    Unfortunately there seems to be a ‘tipping point’ somewhere on the path to success, where delusions of grandeur set in and suddenly turn the rest of the herd into an inferior species that needs to be controlled, managed, even culled, at the whim of the self appointed elite.

    There are many examples of this, of which Bill Gates is probably the best known. The position of the tipping point varies with individuals, and may never be crossed by those with a good internal moral compass, but I get the strong impression that Mike Adams quietly passed this point some time ago.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    The LENR technology seams to be able to deliver power maybe on tenth of the cost today. With that we can have more green houses and more drinkable water in all a boon for a greener society. We will not be able to keep the streets warm at winter and we will not be able to transform the desserts to green forests. But we will be able to sustain our population for another 100 years. But of cause as technology marches on, maybe the cost will go down another 10 or 100 and then we can get these issues. But that is a problem for our grand children. We must do what we can for the next 100 years and take things in steps as the problem arrives. Global warming is a problem not solved or verified enough, but the threat is there, we need to be careful, and the difficulty with this is that the time scales are so large that it demands good models without those we can with bad luck kick the human population from billions to millions. It is therefor good that with a LENR technology we can be careful for another 100 years and hope that out climate understanding can get to the level where we can mitigate climate changes human created or not.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      You do not know the fraction of cost LENR could deliver. Wind blows for free, but the cost to make and set up windmills and other equipment, along with energy storage means (to smooth out delivery), power lines, etc. actually make wind too costly except on a limited scale and in limited locations. Likewise solar energy is free from the Sun, but the cost of cells and construction, energy storage, conversion, lack of continuous operation, etc., make it of limited use and actually averages expensive also except in limited cases. LENR will have equipment costs, maintenance, conversion means, etc., and the cost is yet to be determined for a SYSTEM. I expect it to be somewhat less costly than present systems, and have many virtues, but I do not think a 10% of present costs is even close.

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        Consider 0.1 it as a lower limit, that is the correct side of the limit in light of the discussion e.g. posing a risk of overuse of energy.

      • bachcole

        Given that almost all of the costs are in engineering, some of the costs are in manufacturing, and very little of the costs are in usage and maintenance, I think that calculations should be based upon costs per time. Costs per year for the first year are going to be much greater than costs per year for 100 years.

        • Leonard Weinstein

          Very little of the cost is in engineering of most mature technologies if the quantity of manufacturing and duration of use are large. Manufacture and operation costs can also be relatively small for large production, and long use of LENR, but this is true in all present technology also. Fuel cost for Nuclear, coal, and even gas are small. I expect LENR costs to eventually be small, but not a tiny fraction of present costs, just somewhat smaller or close, but LENR has many other virtues, such as local production, independence from regional power problems, independence from (eventual) decreasing sources of fossil fuels, no wast elimination problem, etc.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    The LENR technology seams to be able to deliver power maybe on tenth of the cost today. With that we can have more green houses and more drinkable water in all a boon for a greener society. We will not be able to keep the streets warm at winter and we will not be able to transform the desserts to green forests. But we will be able to sustain our population for another 100 years. But of cause as technology marches on, maybe the cost will go down another 10 or 100 and then we can get these issues. But that is a problem for our grand children. We must do what we can for the next 100 years and take things in steps as the problem arrives. Global warming is a problem not solved or verified enough, but the threat is there, we need to be careful, and the difficulty with this is that the time scales are so large that it demands good models without those we can with bad luck kick the human population from billions to millions. It is therefor good that with a LENR technology we can be careful for another 100 years and hope that out climate understanding can get to the level where we can mitigate climate changes human created or not.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      You do not know the fraction of cost LENR could deliver. Wind blows for free, but the cost to make and set up windmills and other equipment, along with energy storage means (to smooth out delivery), power lines, etc. actually make wind too costly except on a limited scale and in limited locations. Likewise solar energy is free from the Sun, but the cost of cells and construction, energy storage, conversion, lack of continuous operation, etc., make it of limited use and actually averages expensive also except in limited cases. LENR will have equipment costs, maintenance, conversion means, etc., and the cost is yet to be determined for a SYSTEM. I expect it to be somewhat less costly than present systems, and have many virtues, but I do not think a 10% of present costs is even close.

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        Consider 0.1 it as a lower limit, that is the correct side of the limit in light of the discussion e.g. posing a risk of overuse of energy.

      • bachcole

        Given that almost all of the costs are in engineering, some of the costs are in manufacturing, and very little of the costs are in usage and maintenance, I think that calculations should be based upon costs per time. Costs per year for the first year are going to be much greater than costs per year for 100 years.

        • Leonard Weinstein

          Very little of the cost is in engineering of most mature technologies if the quantity of manufacturing and duration of use are large. Manufacture and operation costs can also be relatively small for large production, and long use of LENR, but this is true in all present technology also. Fuel cost for Nuclear, coal, and even gas are small. I expect LENR costs to eventually be small, but not a tiny fraction of present costs, just somewhat smaller or close, but LENR has many other virtues, such as local production, independence from regional power problems, independence from (eventual) decreasing sources of fossil fuels, no wast elimination problem, etc.

  • Job001

    So, let’s size the issue. Assume we replace all fossil fuels with LENR and that FF CO2 has caused temperatures to rise 0.8C. LENR adds no CO2 so eventually temperatures would go down as CO2 levels decline. However, this assumes the actual heat added is negligible vs solar heating. So, let us review that assumption.

    Solar heat flux net at the earths surface is 173000Tw. Fossil fuel use is 10Giga metric tones or roughly 13309Tw of heat. This is 7.7% of the solar flux, surprisingly large, which is radiated into space with the solar heating. Actually earth surface solar flux declines as extra clouds reflect more light but we won’t include that.

    Conclusion, until LENR amounts to 13309Tw heat flux or more, when replacing all fossil fuels the earths temperature would decline by 0.8C as the Co2 levels drop back to preindustrial levels.

    References;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne_of_oil_equivalent

    This analysis assumes that only FF CO2 has raised temperatures and not the heat of FF, and generally that appears to be more than 3/4 true. We would have to use 4x LENR heat vs FF to raise temperatures by 0.8C, based upon these rough numbers. So, that is interesting, long term efficiency could become important, maybe 50 years out 1.03^50=4.4 times at a 3%/yr growth rate.

  • Job001

    So, let’s size the issue. Assume we replace all fossil fuels with LENR and that FF CO2 has caused temperatures to rise 0.8C. LENR adds no CO2 so eventually temperatures would go down as CO2 levels decline. However, this assumes the actual heat added is negligible vs solar heating. So, let us review that assumption.

    Solar heat flux net at the earths surface is 173000Tw. Fossil fuel use is 10Giga metric tones or roughly 13309Tw of heat. This is 7.7% of the solar flux, surprisingly large, which is radiated into space with the solar heating. Actually earth surface solar flux declines as extra clouds reflect more light but we won’t include that.

    Conclusion, until LENR amounts to 13309Tw heat flux or more, when replacing all fossil fuels the earths temperature would decline by 0.8C as the Co2 levels drop back to preindustrial levels.

    References;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne_of_oil_equivalent

    This analysis assumes that only FF CO2 has raised temperatures and not the heat of FF, and generally that appears to be more than 3/4 true. We would have to use 4x LENR heat vs FF to raise temperatures by 0.8C, based upon these rough numbers. So, that is interesting, long term LENR efficiency could become important, maybe 50 years out 1.03^50=4.4 times at a 3%/yr growth rate but LENR is vastly better than FF.

  • Kent B

    Have had these doubts before so I did some calculations.

    The sun radiates approx 1kW per m2. This gives approx 1e9 TWh over the whole sphere. Total worldwide energy consumption is approx 150 TWh. So increasing the energy consumption even 700 times is still just 1 of the heat generated by the sun.

    As this was quickly done on the with a mobile please Verify these calculation. Power consumption and world radius was taken from Wikipedia.

  • Kent B
  • Daniel Maris

    I am sure that is a sensible use of your time but that “natural environment” is in the final analysis a collection of chemicals: broken down rock, and decayed vegetable and animal material, mixed with water. There’s no reason in principle why we can’t recreate that growing medium.

    Obviously creating “lab meat” of equal quality to animal meat on farms is a much greater challenge.

    • georgehants

      Below is just one of the many tragedies in science where great men and women have been unfairly criticized and denied.
      If one does not have certain Evidence than a quiet mouth is a great gift.
      Some Wonderful factual, insightful comments today and the usual batch of less good quality.
      ———-
      “Ludwig Boltzmann was greatly demoralized due to the harsh criticism of
      his work. He committed suicide on September 5, 1906 at Duino, Italy by
      hanging himself. He was 62 years old.”
      He was proved correct shortly after his death.
      http://www.famousscientists.org/ludwig-boltzmann/

  • Marie Pryce Manahan

    Wont free energy help us to remove many of the pollutants from the planet and help prevent others for damaging it. We can filter contaminated water fulltime, irrigate many barren lands and convert them into fields and forests. Think outside of the box as opposed to the prehistoric thinking of old, make a more efficient wheel instead of the same old one or better yet find a better alternative to the wheel. If we are to move forward, we must have long term vision.

  • Marie Pryce Manahan

    Wont free energy help us to remove many of the pollutants from the planet and help prevent others for damaging it. We can filter contaminated water fulltime, irrigate many barren lands and convert them into fields and forests. Think outside of the box as opposed to the prehistoric thinking of old, make a more efficient wheel instead of the same old one or better yet find a better alternative to the wheel. If we are to move forward, we must have long term vision.

  • l

    Free energy will allow to change easily and cheaply the atmosphere composition so preventing GW.

    It is easy to shield the incoming solar energy by nowadays technology so balancing the radiative input-output of our planet.

  • l

    Free energy will allow to change easily and cheaply the atmosphere composition so preventing GW.

    It is easy to shield the incoming solar energy by nowadays technology so balancing the radiative input-output of our planet.

  • georgehants

    Engineering Newswire
    Lettuce See the Future: Japanese Farmer Builds Indoor Veggie Factory
    Working in Miyagi Prefecture in eastern Japan, which was badly hit by
    powerful earthquake and tsunamis in 2011, Shimamura turned a former Sony
    Corporation semiconductor factory into the world’s largest indoor farm
    illuminated by LEDs. The special LED fixtures were developed by GE and
    emit light at wavelengths optimal for plant growth.
    http://www.pddnet.com/news/2014/07/lettuce-see-future-japanese-farmer-builds-indoor-veggie-factory

  • georgehants

    Engineering Newswire
    Lettuce See the Future: Japanese Farmer Builds Indoor Veggie Factory
    Working in Miyagi Prefecture in eastern Japan, which was badly hit by
    powerful earthquake and tsunamis in 2011, Shimamura turned a former Sony
    Corporation semiconductor factory into the world’s largest indoor farm
    illuminated by LEDs. The special LED fixtures were developed by GE and
    emit light at wavelengths optimal for plant growth.
    http://www.pddnet.com/news/2014/07/lettuce-see-future-japanese-farmer-builds-indoor-veggie-factory

  • bachcole

    This is the best argument against LENR+ (other than the argument that it is not real), but it is a very weak argument.

    • Ophelia Rump

      The best argument against LENR is that it can improve the standard of living for the entire planet. It will make it possible to run every human failing out to new extremes. When we loosen restraints from humanity, humanity responds by breeding itself into a new height of desperation.

      The argument is akin to: “This is why we can’t have nice things!”

  • LucaS

    I strongly dislike people who want to impose others what to do and not to do…. Exactly the way of thinking of those who doesn’t want LERN to protect their interests… Only the market has to be the final judge but people like Adams doesn’t trust the free market…. the very prerequisite of e-cat and any real solution to his supposed “global warming”…. Don’t you think that much cheaper energy can turn possible a lot of new technologies against global warming… I really HATE this dictators and I’m tired to hear to them…. All of them want to dictate us, always for the good…. If you really want to dictate or you like being dictated (as it seems from your post) so go to the US under Obama and his NSA and others, or to North Korea and good luck!

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day

  • Fibb

    direct warming of the planet by free energy devices posing any kind of threat is beyond ridiculous ….. lolol.

    however green house gases trapping the sun’s heat is a colossal threat.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Another poorly informed and mis-led response: “Green house trapping the sun’s heat is a colossal threat”

      You really need to study the facts rather than accept that incorrect position.

      The possibility of ecat or other lower cost and more available energy is desirable, but not for the reason of AGW. In fact, the increased CO2 has been a blessing, and prevented mass starvation as population increased.

      • bachcole

        Leonard, where have you been all my life? You are now my new favorite commenter here, other than my narcissistic self of course.

        What if we double the CO2? What would that do to the temperature? Some, probably not catastrophic. Plant life would par-tay. Some increased temperature would increase evaporation, which would mean the greening of the planet.

        It would mean change, and that would be scary for some people. But we could just have them periodically breath into and out of a bag to increase their CO2 intake and reduce their anxiety. (:->) They could try EFT or increase their magnesium and fish oil intake.

        • JohnB

          You mean that if we increase the CO2 a bit, these terrible things will happen?
          Winters won’t be as cold?
          There will be more nice days at the beach?
          There will be a longer growing season?
          Plants will grow better and faster?
          We’ll feed even more people?
          Less people will die from cold?
          Deserts will shrink and green?
          We’ll be able to grow crops in even more places?

          My God! It must be stopped!

      • Fibb

        you posted nonsense. agw deniers are a very strange bunch.

  • JohnB

    So once again a person in a wealthy western nation who has access to cheap energy is saying that those without it shouldn’t have it.

    Call me cynical but it’s fascinating how many ecological disasters can apparently be avoided if the 3rd world would just be satisfied being poor, sick and energy deficient. It’s just too dangerous for the planet for them to have what we have.
    /sarc

    • GreenWin

      There WILL be trials. Hearings. Criminal indictments for crimes against humanity. We can only forgive those who ask for forgiveness. And are willing to appear, face to face, like decent honest men. Academia is filled with those who looked the other way when fellow academics were figuratively dragged from their classrooms and “put away.”

      These academics can come forward and admit their part, or wait for subpoenas and inevitable humiliation. They will not avoid justice.

      • the correputed mainstream system will not allow that, but there is the

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Peoples'_Tribunal

        I’m afraid it is under control of our criminals,but we can create a clone of that tribunal to make the job. I know very unpopular groups that will be happy to help indict the sacred cows

    • Ophelia Rump

      It is all to common for the aid to be stolen before it reaches needy populations. When it does make it to them, they have a generation or two of extreme population growth before the population once again becomes unsustainable. How do you intend to address these issues, before you play god with their lives.

      • JohnB

        Sorry Ophelia, but how does that relate to what I said?

        I was commenting on how so many eco warriors are willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the undeveloped world for the nebulous cause of “saving the planet”. And it’s never that these “haves” should give up their iPhones, flat screen TVs and computers it’s that the “have nots” should not get them.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Some times it is a crime against humanity both to interfere or not interfere.
          It has everything to do with what you said. I want everyone to have a good life, like you do. It requires more than good intentions or some general notion of equality and freedom. It requires an actionable plan.

          The fact is that anything which tampers with any traditional lifestyle threatens the existence of the people who you are trying to help, if it fails after their old ways have been replaced or if it leads to explosive population growth.

          My point is exactly that it is too dangerous to extend the life and reproductive capacity of everyone on the planet, unless we can manage those populations and their impact on the planet. You were being sarcastic, I am not.

          Feeding the starving is a noble misadventure if you keep feeding them until there are so many that you can not sustain them any longer.
          There needs to be well thought out lifestyle transitions to new and sustainable communities before this technology is dumped upon the third world.

          You spoke on their behalf, what is your plan? Quadrupling their population and then watching them collapse is not a valid option.

  • JohnB

    So once again a person in a wealthy western nation who has access to cheap energy is saying that those without it shouldn’t have it.

    Call me cynical but it’s fascinating how many ecological disasters can apparently be avoided if the 3rd world would just be satisfied being poor, sick and energy deficient. It’s just too dangerous for the planet for them to have what we have.
    /sarc

    • GreenWin

      There WILL be trials. Hearings. Criminal indictments for crimes against humanity. We can only forgive those who ask for forgiveness. And are willing to appear, face to face, like decent honest men. Academia is filled with those who looked the other way when fellow academics were figuratively dragged from their classrooms and “put away.”

      These academics can come forward and admit their part, or wait for subpoenas and inevitable humiliation. They will not avoid justice.

      • bachcole

        You probably won’t get too many indictments and next to no convictions. Therefore I prefer shamings. Perhaps protests with signs shaming these dirt bags. And if they choose to sue the protesters, so much the better; we can trounce them in civil court. We only need a majority is civil courts.

      • the correputed mainstream system will not allow that, but there is the

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Peoples'_Tribunal

        I’m afraid it is under control of our criminals,but we can create a clone of that tribunal to make the job. I know very unpopular groups that will be happy to help indict the sacred cows

        • bachcole

          Given that I have never heard of it, perhaps another venue would be better. I prefer people picketing.

    • Ophelia Rump

      It is all to common for the aid to be stolen before it reaches needy populations. When it does make it to them, they have a generation or two of extreme population growth before the population once again becomes unsustainable. How do you intend to address these issues, before you play god with their lives.

      • JohnB

        Sorry Ophelia, but how does that relate to what I said?

        I was commenting on how so many eco warriors are willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the undeveloped world for the nebulous cause of “saving the planet”. And it’s never that these “haves” should give up their iPhones, flat screen TVs and computers it’s that the “have nots” should not get them.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Some times it is a crime against humanity both to interfere or not interfere.
          It has everything to do with what you said. I want everyone to have a good life, like you do. It requires more than good intentions or some general notion of equality and freedom. It requires an actionable plan.

          The fact is that anything which tampers with any traditional lifestyle threatens the existence of the people who you are trying to help, if it fails after their old ways have been replaced or if it leads to explosive population growth.

          My point is exactly that it is too dangerous to extend the life and reproductive capacity of everyone on the planet, unless we can manage those populations and their impact on the planet. You were being sarcastic, I am not.

          Feeding the starving is a noble misadventure if you keep feeding them until there are so many that you can not sustain them any longer.
          There needs to be well thought out lifestyle transitions to new and sustainable communities before this technology is dumped upon the third world.

          You spoke on their behalf, what is your plan? Quadrupling their population and then watching them collapse is not a valid option.

          • bachcole

            You are a Malthusian. The problem with Malthusianism is that we are not frogs. Prosperity and education are excellent forms of birth control.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Instant civilization. Much evil has been done in it’s name. I would not deny anyone a better life. Neither would I push it upon them with out having done due diligence. It is not enough to speak of providing improvement, when you provide those improvements, you are responsible for the outcome. Is it so wrong to speak of responsibility? Civilization has played the drop and run game many times.

            Need I remind you that our civilization is very young and very close to the edge of falling back to some state less capable of sustaining the current population levels?

            Should that happen, those third world people will hardly notice the difference, would it be the right thing to do to take them with us if we should perish? You should not export civilization unless you export the whole package, and in a form which is both sustainable and locally produced for the most part.

            Give a desert dwelling town a well that lasts for 50 years and they will forget how they once survived, the well will eventually fail and they will perish because they lack the technology to replace it.
            I know for fact this mistake has already been made repeatedly.

            Before you can teach them to fish, you need to be a better fisherman using what is available to them in their environment.

          • JohnB

            Sorry Ophelia, but just because you have apocalyptic fantasies doesn’t make it true. The ONLY thing that might make us fall back to some less capable state is the influence of eco warrior apocalyptic fantasies. The world looks forward to new, cleaner and cheaper energy, the very thing that you are afraid of.

            We are supporting more people than ever before using less land. This simple fact alone makes anybody who has Malthusian tendencies an idiot, preferring drab and terrible fantasies to the amazing and bright reality.

            You do deny people a better life. Like Justice, advancement delayed is advancement denied. Real people are dying while you sit in comfort demanding “due diligence”.

            And I’m not forcing my views of civilisation and development on anybody, you are. I’m saying nothing more than that if they want development we have no right to delay it or stand in their way. It’s their choice, not yours or mine.

            There is an old saying that people should “Lead, Follow or get out of the way.” It’s well past time for the Malthusians to get out of the way.

          • bachcole

            The State of Kerala in southern India has gone on a massive education rampage, and by doing so they have brought down their population growth. The education curriculum was NOT western oriented. I don’t know how they are doing with the prosperity angle, but education seemed to be enough.

            I had a friend from Kerala, a lady named Shyni Dennis, who worked with me remotely at MCI. Her mother wanted to call her “shiny”, so she switched the ‘i’ and the ‘y’, and made it “Shyni”, but it is still pronounced “shiny”. She was descended from those Indian Christians who were converted to Christianity by St. Thomas, the immediate disciple of Jesus, THE “doubting” Thomas.

            If you check out http://www.gapminder.org/world . Select both the X and Y axis to be “children per woman (total fertility)”. Then click “Play”, you will see how the number of children per woman is crashing towards 2 worldwide. This means, according to population scientists, that the world’s population is going to plateau out at around 10 billion. And it will even go down a tad. Although 10 billion is bigger than 7 billion, with LENR, it will be much easier to handle 10 billion than it is now handling 7 billion without LENR.

            So stop fretting, please. I’m not.

          • JohnB

            As nations develop the population growth slows. This is the observed fact on this planet. All sensible estimates put the planetary population as stabilising at around the 12 billion mark, a number that we can feed and give a good life to with relative ease.

            For all your comments about “traditional lifestyles” you miss the point. You are happy to have electricity, clean water and a decent lifestyle and yet you try to deny the same to those others. I’ll be blunt here, it cannot be a coincidence that it is always the non whites of this world who are supposed to stay in 3rd world conditions. There has not been a single “looming ecological disaster” for the last 60 years that has not had as part of the “solution” that the coloured peoples stay poor.

            Nor is it about feeding the starving, there are less malnourished people (percentage wise) than ever before. Obesity is more of a problem than malnutrition now. The idea is to help them develop and feed themselves. Power plants, farms, dams, electricity and healthcare. Or does the idea of well fed, successful, black people bother you?

            You say that it is “too dangerous to extend the life and reproductive capacity of everyone on the planet” and yet it is only the non whites that you would limit. Perhaps we should limit the populations of the nations with the greatest densities? Would that be fair?

            Places like South Africa and Cameroon have only 100 or so people per square kilometre, if you are really serious about controlling population you should start in the UK, Germany or France where the figure is close to 600.

            Ophelia, you are exactly the type of person I was talking about. You are happy to take all that modern society can give while arguing against others having even the basics that you take for granted. You are arguing that while you are entitled to electricity, clean water and internet access, they are not. Are they inferior beings of some sort in your eyes?

            It’s called “Eco colonialism”. Those poor, misguided people just don’t have the understanding of the educated whites and can’t see how their desires for a better life are just not possible. Far better if they just do as they’re told. For their own good, of course.

          • Omega Z

            ->”All sensible estimates put the planetary population as stabilizing at around the 12 billion mark.”
            Outdated:
            Those numbers are being scaled back as we speak by the bean counters. May be reduced by about 3 billion, tho it’s unlikely to become official as this would reduce funding for their population projects.

            ->”if you are really serious about controlling population you should start in the UK, Germany or France”

            Done. We’ll just stop all the poor from other countries from migrating. Most of the developed world would peek in a short time & their populations would decline if not for migrants.

            Note: Japan along with a couple other countries have officially peeked & starting into the decline stage. Many others would be included but for immigrants. Most Population growth is from 3rd world and some developing countries. Even many of those are starting to see a slowing in population growth.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The best argument against LENR is that it can improve the standard of living for the entire planet. It will make it possible to run every human failing out to new extremes. When we loosen restraints from humanity, humanity responds by breeding itself into a new height of desperation.

    The argument is akin to: “This is why we can’t have nice things!”

  • bkrharold

    The idea that LENR could pose a threat is preposterous. Here is the reason. Our climate scientists unanimously agree that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change. They do this by trapping ever greater quantities of heat from the sun. A technology like LENR which produces no greenhouse gas, would be REPLACING devices which produce heat and carbon dioxide. This is bound to be less harmful. LENR could make it possible to use more energy for other applications such as desalination, However the extra heat it produces would be offset by the greenhouse gases that are no longer being produced for all our other energy needs.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If mankind were stupid enough to generate enough waste heat to turn the entire planet into an oven, we would always have the option to turn down the temperature when it starts to get too hot. You cannot do that with green house gases.

      But I think you are correct bkrharold.

  • Omega Z

    Turbines can be efficient, but they don’t scale down well as to cost.
    I’m of the opinion that 3D printing could quickly close the Gap. Possibly even increasing the efficiency rate.

    Another Area where 3D Micro Printers could be used is with Lonnie Johnson’s JTEC Thermal Electric device.

    And Then it may have applications with MHD technologies.

  • Omega Z

    I see a doubling of present energy production.
    “That leaves a window for another 5998 increase.” LOL
    At double present use, the resource limitations will already have started increasing it’s cost. You don’t really believe in Limitless do you. Silly people.

  • Omega Z

    Having time for it to soak in I Realized

    1000 fold, 6000 fold increase in energy production as some scaremonger about-
    Aside from being an asinine idea, Our present energy demand will absorb 2%(Everything accounted for) of nickel production. Bring the World standard up & add new uses, we could see 6% of Nickel production used. This stuff isn’t just laying around waiting to be used. It’s already in use.

    It’s abundant & Cheap considering the amount that would be used for energy, But it is Not Limitless nor free. We will not do as Mike Adams envisions even if we wanted to. Totally unrealistic. He needs to engage his brain before being allowed near a Keyboard. The Kook!

  • Omega Z

    Having time for it to soak in I Realized

    1000 fold, 6000 fold increase in energy production as some scaremonger about-
    Aside from being an asinine idea, Our present energy demand will absorb 2%(Everything accounted for) of nickel production. Bring the World standard up & add new uses, we could see 6% of Nickel production used. This stuff isn’t just laying around waiting to be used. It’s already in use.

    It’s abundant & Cheap considering the amount that would be used for energy, But it is Not Limitless nor free. We will not do as Mike Adams envisions even if we wanted to. Totally unrealistic. He needs to engage his brain before being allowed near a Keyboard. The Kook!

    • bachcole

      Whatever part of his brain/mind engages humility and honesty would be more important than his research inclinations, IMHO.

  • Mike Fidler

    Since we will be becoming a Type 1 civilization, (Kardashev scale), we should have the brains to keep Earth from burning up and be able terraform Venus!

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Another poorly informed and mis-led response: “Green house trapping the sun’s heat is a colossal threat”

    You really need to study the facts rather than accept that incorrect position.

    The possibility of ecat or other lower cost and more available energy is desirable, but not for the reason of AGW. In fact, the increased CO2 has been a blessing, and prevented mass starvation as population increased.

    • Fibb

      you posted nonsense. agw deniers are a very strange bunch.

  • Jim Anderson

    After reading the discusion it seems very unlikely that energy produced by LENR would ever be on a large enough scale that it would be a problem.
    I’d like to raise another issue . LENR has the capability to transmute various elements. Tritium has been detected in some of the LENR experiments. Tritium is used in nuculear weapon triggers. Also if there is the ability to transmute one element into another, and this looks like this is the case, then the limits of this transmutation ability are important. Can U235 or plutonium be created. If that is the case preventing the spread of atomic weapons is very difficult. This transmutaion appears to be possible in small scale operations not requiring state level support. There is even more bad news in that the knowledge that transmutation is possible is wide spread. LENR for the production of energy will come and it will be safe and very positive for the human condition but the transmutation aspect of this technology may prove troubling over time.

    • Omega Z

      Transmutation is not a problem from what we know.
      This is such a tiny amount, that even Governments would find it economically unsuitable for use.

      At best, After many years & huge expense, you would end up with possibly a high grade ore that still needs to go through the conventional refinement process. That’s a lot of bother just to end up back at square 1. Regardless of intent.

  • Obvious

    The obvious solution is to move all energy users into space, and leave the neo-Luddites to farm the Earth without chemicals and machinery.

  • Obvious

    The obvious solution is to move all energy users into space, and leave the neo-Luddites to farm the Earth without chemicals and machinery.

    • bachcole

      “Evil is a good thing taken too far.” — Inayat Khan —

      “Balance is everything.” — Buddha —

      Obviously, if I can respond to you via email, I am not a Luddite. It is utter foolishness to think that reductionistic science can figure out each and every thing in exactly the right proportion that is necessary for our soils and for our foods. To think otherwise fails to notice that science is discovering valuable new soil and food ingredients and their correct proportions all of the time.

      But the worst part is profit driven farming and food production is NOT going to insure that each and every ingredient is present in the soils and foods in the correct proportions. They will cut corners. It is not about being against technological progress. It is about understanding how things work.

      • Obvious

        I was responding to the need the save the planet. Saving the people of the planet seems to be a secondary concern to many radical environmentalist groups.
        So move the heat-makers to a colder, dead planet, or interior of a large asteroid, where the excess heat won’t bother anything.

        • Omega Z

          That would not fit with their agenda’s.
          Your Obvious-ly looking to get flogged & imprisoned.

  • palaceplanetarian

    The sun showers the earth with 100,000 terawatts of solar energy a day. But all humanity use only 40 terawatts, according to a chief science advisor to pres Obama. Adjusting the amount of enegy retained on the planet instead radiated back to space so much more important that the amount of energy released by all human activities as this article argues just a silly expression of a common environmental faith which assumes people are evil, unable to respect the ecology and must be punished for their sins. In this view a vision of a global, sophisticated, prosperous, technological civilization is both bad for Gaia, impossible and/or sinful for a species with illegitimate aspirations for ecological supremacy. However, there is another view that technology can both allow the protection of the earth’s biosphere and global prosperity allowing humanity to be all it can be. In time, the best way to do this is to save the planet: leave (an incrasing percentage of the population and infrastructure, see Robert Kennedy Jr. Essay in Parasise Regained by Less Johnson with NASA.)

    • Omega Z

      According to the numbers you provide, we would account for about .04% of the heat of which a portion of leaks out into space.
      Figure Heat variance of 3% coming from the Sun, Even if we doubled our contribution, it would be in the range of infinitesimal.

  • palaceplanetarian

    The temptation to believe that something as positive as LENR could be more dangerous than ending greenhouse gas production is not only not supported by a fair energy aidit but sign of whst some may see as a comforting and reassuring pessimism about humanity and our role and prospects in the universe. Are we destined and deserve destruction or can we use our intelligence to change and make the world better for all of its inhabitants. LENR and other coming developments are proof that our doom is not necessarily our destiny or just.

  • palaceplanetarian

    The temptation to believe that something as positive as LENR could be more dangerous than ending greenhouse gas production is not only not supported by a fair energy aidit but sign of whst some may see as a comforting and reassuring pessimism about humanity and our role and prospects in the universe. Are we destined and deserve destruction or can we use our intelligence to change and make the world better for all of its inhabitants. LENR and other coming developments are proof that our doom is not necessarily our destiny or just.

  • oaklandthinktank

    Mike Adams echoes my sentiments. 🙂 Greenhouse gasses won’t vanish as soon as LENR devices go to market – we’ll have decades of overlap where desalination plants pump huge plumes of heat into the atmosphere, while CO2 levels remain high. While this may be only a fraction of 1% of earth’s heat budget, it will be localized at cities and major industrial centers – and potentially impact global weather and local climate.

    Some will even PREFER if their country becomes a little warmer – I wouldn’t be surprised if Russians left the water boiler running, to keep frost off their grain. And, if Israel and Saudi Arabia fund massive desalination and cloud-seeding projects, what happens to the monsoon?

    The question lingering on my mind: How Much Heat are we talking about? Replacement of existing coal and nuclear plants, gas and grid power… that saves us some greenhouse gasses, but we could expect a lower demand for thermal efficiency – more heat, by how much?

    On top of that, whenever a resource becomes cheaper, we see an increase in the volume used – people waste it when its cheap, but more importantly, a cheaper resource gets used for applications that were previously unaffordable. (titanium lawn chairs, anyone? it’s only costly because of the power demand for smelting and forming…) Desalination & winter heating will be HUGE, and the economic gains from efficient power sources would increase demand for ALL products… increasing demand for the power-sources that make them. Compare the costs of horse and steam power – how much cheaper was steam? And how many times larger did our energy use become?

    • bachcole

      Oakland brings up a very interesting way to do the calculations (which have been done numerous times here and on Mike Adams comment section.) Take the total amount of money spent on energy usage today. Divide by the number of people in the world (7 billion, roughly). Now, divide that number by the projected cost of LENR per person, and multiply that times the number of projected watts per individual usage of LENR. This number would represent the amount of LENR energy usage that individual people would be willing to pay for.

      Now (with a little magic from http://www.gapminder.com), multiply that by 10 billion ( the approximate level that populations scientists say the populations is going to plateau out at.) That would give the approximate gross energy output of LENR in say 100 years. BUT, we now have to subtract out our current total amount of heat generated by mankind AND the savings from reduced CO2 levels. Oakland rightly says that the CO2 levels are not going to plummet just because we stop pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. But he doesn’t include any increased plant growth by 2114, which our glorious climate scientists are also not including.

      Then, we have to compare that with the total amount of energy hitting Earth from the Sun.

      I bet that there will be a lot of “buts”.

      I leave it to the students to work out the details. (:->)

      • Omega Z

        bachcole
        You may be aware I’ve posted my speculations on population levels with present data. My speculation was that the World population growth would likely stop at about 8.5 billion & allowing for increasing longevity would possibly peek at about 9 Billion.

        The bean counters are at present recalculating their numbers. A preliminary number I recently came across is that population would likely peek at 8.5 to 9 billion. I doubt this number will be made official for sometime as this could negatively effect their project funding. But it’s looking good that there will be about 3 billion less mouths to feed in the future then at one time thought.

    • Omega Z

      Consider all the energy we use already produces heat. Already wastes 65% of that heat. Being replaced with something that has a high probabilty of being more efficient. End result would be less heat.

      Locally Generated Electricity instead of long distance transmitted electricity will be far more efficient. Less heat.

      Recycling requires smaller quantities of heat/energy then obtaining new resources. This makes Recycling even more appealing. Less heat.

      With Fossil powered vehicles you have 75% heat waste. LERN generated electricity powered Electric vehicle efficiency will result in less heat.

      Winter heating is already in use. Not additive. LENR heating would result in higher efficiency. Less waste. Less heat.

      Desalinized water. Your assuming Flash/boiled. Even with LENR, this will be expensive. It is highly probable that all future desalinizing will be done by some type of reverse osmosis. It will ultimately be much easier & cheaper. This eliminates many costs & problems of flash/boil systems. Your looking at less heat.

      You assume people will waste. This technology will provide cheaper energy, but it will still cost. Turbines, Generators, the structure it’s housed in will still be of around the same costs. People will still want efficient appliances. They will still insulate their homes because it provides even comfortable temperatures.

      Larger portions of food consumption will be from local production. Requiring less energy thus less heat. As will many products made more local rather then from half way around the world. Less heat.

      Your concern of increased use in other parts of the world are unfounded. They will be partially offset by heat/energy consumption from other parts of the world & their own use will be of higher efficiencies.

      All the above without all the emissions of pollutants.

      The materials used for this technology, tho plentiful, Is still limited. Wasting of it would nullify any cost savings. This is a self regulating energy source. It still has limitations.
      We will in fact be forced to find newer more efficient means to continue on our path.

  • oaklandthinktank

    Mike Adams echoes my sentiments. 🙂 Greenhouse gasses won’t vanish as soon as LENR devices go to market – we’ll have decades of overlap where desalination plants pump huge plumes of heat into the atmosphere, while CO2 levels remain high. While this may be only a fraction of 1% of earth’s heat budget, it will be localized at cities and major industrial centers – and potentially impact global weather and local climate.

    Some will even PREFER if their country becomes a little warmer – I wouldn’t be surprised if Russians left the water boiler running, to keep frost off their grain. And, if Israel and Saudi Arabia fund massive desalination and cloud-seeding projects, what happens to the monsoon?

    The question lingering on my mind: How Much Heat are we talking about? Replacement of existing coal and nuclear plants, gas and grid power… that saves us some greenhouse gasses, but we could expect a lower demand for thermal efficiency – more heat, by how much?

    On top of that, whenever a resource becomes cheaper, we see an increase in the volume used – people waste it when its cheap, but more importantly, a cheaper resource gets used for applications that were previously unaffordable. (titanium lawn chairs, anyone? it’s only costly because of the power demand for smelting and forming…) Desalination & winter heating will be HUGE, and the economic gains from efficient power sources would increase demand for ALL products… increasing demand for the power-sources that make them. Compare the costs of horse and steam power – how much cheaper was steam? And how many times larger did our energy use become?

    • bachcole

      Oakland brings up a very interesting way to do the calculations (which have been done numerous times here and on Mike Adams comment section.) Take the total amount of money spent on energy usage today. Divide by the number of people in the world (7 billion, roughly). Now, divide that number by the projected cost of LENR per person, and multiply that times the number of projected watts per individual usage of LENR. This number would represent the amount of LENR energy usage that individual people would be willing to pay for.

      Now (with a little magic from http://www.gapminder.com), multiply that by 10 billion ( the approximate level that populations scientists say the populations is going to plateau out at.) That would give the approximate gross energy output of LENR in say 100 years. BUT, we now have to subtract out our current total amount of heat generated by mankind AND the savings from reduced CO2 levels. Oakland rightly says that the CO2 levels are not going to plummet just because we stop pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. But he doesn’t include any increased plant growth by 2114, which our glorious climate scientists are also not including.

      Then, we have to compare that with the total amount of energy hitting Earth from the Sun.

      I bet that there will be a lot of “buts”.

      I leave it to the students to work out the details. (:->)

      • Omega Z

        bachcole
        You may be aware I’ve posted my speculations on population levels with present data. My speculation was that the World population growth would likely stop at about 8.5 billion & allowing for increasing longevity would possibly peek at about 9 Billion.

        The bean counters are at present recalculating their numbers. A preliminary number I recently came across is that population would likely peek at 8.5 to 9 billion. I doubt this number will be made official for sometime as this could negatively effect their project funding. But it’s looking good that there will be about 3 billion less mouths to feed in the future then at one time thought.

    • Omega Z

      Consider all the energy we use already produces heat. Already wastes 65% of that heat. Being replaced with something that has a high probabilty of being more efficient. End result would be less heat.

      Locally Generated Electricity instead of long distance transmitted electricity will be far more efficient. Less heat.

      Recycling requires smaller quantities of heat/energy then obtaining new resources. This makes Recycling even more appealing. Less heat.

      With Fossil powered vehicles you have 75% heat waste. LERN generated electricity powered Electric vehicle efficiency will result in less heat.

      Winter heating is already in use. Not additive. LENR heating would result in higher efficiency. Less waste. Less heat.

      Desalinized water. Your assuming Flash/boiled. Even with LENR, this will be expensive. It is highly probable that all future desalinizing will be done by some type of reverse osmosis. It will ultimately be much easier & cheaper. This eliminates many costs & problems of flash/boil systems. Your looking at less heat.

      You assume people will waste. This technology will provide cheaper energy, but it will still cost. Turbines, Generators, the structure it’s housed in will still be of around the same costs. People will still want efficient appliances. They will still insulate their homes because it provides even comfortable temperatures.

      Larger portions of food consumption will be from local production. Requiring less energy thus less heat. As will many products made more local rather then from half way around the world. Less heat.

      Your concern of increased use in other parts of the world are unfounded. They will be partially offset by heat/energy consumption from other parts of the world & their own use will be of higher efficiencies.

      All the above without all the emissions of pollutants.

      The materials used for this technology, tho plentiful, Is still limited. Wasting of it would nullify any cost savings. This is a self regulating energy source. It still has limitations.
      We will in fact be forced to find newer more efficient means to continue on our path.

      • bachcole

        Nice.

  • Obvious

    I was responding to the need the save the planet. Saving the people of the planet seems to be a secondary concern to many radical environmentalist groups.
    So move the heat-makers to a colder, dead planet, or interior of a large asteroid, where the excess heat won’t bother anything.

    • Omega Z

      That would not fit with their agenda’s.
      Your Obvious-ly looking to get flogged & imprisoned.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    georgehants, you clearly do not look at data before opening your mouth. Almost all reasonably wealthy countries in the West and wealthy countries in the orient (Europe, US, Canada, Japan, etc.) have near zero to negative population growth internally. Only new immigration from poor second and third world countries add significantly to the population. It is poor countries that have excess population growth (Africa, South and Central America, much of Asia, and Middle East).

    • bachcole

      When my wife and I were having a lot of fun, in the back of my mind was not the worry that I would need babies to grow up and support me when I was too old to work. We both knew that Social Security and our own efforts to save and invest would sustain us in our old age.

      Also, because we both had college degrees, we had learned how much fun one can have thinking and reading. Most poor people are uneducated, and the only fun they have in their lives is sex and eating.

  • latoca

    “In the market there is truth” — as well as — deception, corruption and fraud. Libertarian free market economy types are simply wrong. As Alan Greenspan, a Chicago School of Economics alum, and of course, former chair of the Fed, testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, after the 2008 financial meltdown, admitted when Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee asked Greenspan “Do you feel that your
    ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?” Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

    So, the fact that Rossi is a free market libertarian — when this economic theory has been proven again and again to be so destructive — frankly is concerning. The interests of corporations ( which are primarily profit and resource availability ) are not the only interests that matter — to this planet or to human beings. Corporations and free-market libertarians would do well to remember that.

    • Omega Z

      Your concerns are dually noted.
      And dismissed as I’m sure you have an opinion to what system would work.
      Here’s a Little known secret. No Economic system or theory works as intended. They all have one flaw. They all require the understanding of people. “Something no one has been able to even remotely accomplish.”

      Trying to figure out Corporations. You’ve failed before you’ve even gotten started. It is only a Paper Tool. Has no Feelings of any type what so ever. Neither good nor bad. Nothing.
      Look to the people who run it. This will require the understanding of people. See statement above.

  • Omega Z

    Your concerns are dually noted.
    And dismissed as I’m sure you have an opinion to what system would work.
    Here’s a Little known secret. No Economic system or theory works as intended. They all have one flaw. They all require the understanding of people. “Something no one has been able to even remotely accomplish.”

    Trying to figure out Corporations. You’ve failed before you’ve even gotten started. It is only a Paper Tool. Has no Feelings of any type what so ever. Neither good nor bad. Nothing.
    Look to the people who run it. This will require the understanding of people. See statement above.

  • Omega Z

    According to the numbers you provide, we would account for about .04% of the heat of which a portion of leaks out into space.
    Figure Heat variance of 3% coming from the Sun, Even if we doubled our contribution, it would be in the range of infinitesimal.

  • Mike

    If one has free or very cheap energy and this in itself causes the planet to warm one can use the same energy to pump the access energy in the atmosphere out into space via laser or micowave etc. So the argument is absurd to begin with.

    I looks like we have someone more interested in control than solving problems.

  • Flo

    The argument is technically absurd. First of all, if the CO2 has any measurable effect on the climate, it will disappear, second, as already suggested, excess heat/energy can be pumped out of the system (planet Earth) with technology very easily, all what you need is very cheap energy to do that.

    Third, and most important… the Sun puts a lot of power on this planet’s surface. In comparison with the Sun output, our technological society output, even when let’s say we would be 30 billion people living in a very high-tech futuristic civilization … in comparison it’s a 0+ effect.
    It’s a non-issue.

  • mytakeis

    Re: danger of unlimited free energy: Hogwash!

  • HS61AF91

    Re: danger of unlimited free energy: Hogwash!

    • bachcole

      I’d be more afraid of unlimited desires than I would be of (almost) unlimited energy.

  • physicist

    lets put some numbers to this to put it in perspective
    toatl amount of energy generated in the world in 2008 was 143 terrawatt hours in a year
    at a growth rate of ~ 20% per year with current energy sources that would put us at between 350 and 400 terrawatt hours per yer
    in exponential form thats 3.5 E14(10 to the 14th )
    total absorbed energy from the son is ~ 340 w/m2 x-section for the earth
    sparing the details of getting there (you should be able to figure it out if you want to double check) that works out to approximately 6.5 e22
    there is 8 orders of magnitude separation which means to make a 10% impact
    would rezuire a 10 million fold increase in generated energy to make a significant dent.(10%)

    this is an absurd concern
    rather than verbalize non-sense
    calculate and make informed decisions

    • GreenWin

      Mike Adams reminds us of a petulant little girl shouting, “You’re all just stupid!”

  • physicist

    lets put some numbers to this to put it in perspective
    toatl amount of energy generated in the world in 2008 was 143 terrawatt hours in a year
    at a growth rate of ~ 20% per year with current energy sources that would put us at between 350 and 400 terrawatt hours per yer
    in exponential form thats 3.5 E14(10 to the 14th )
    total absorbed energy from the son is ~ 340 w/m2 x-section for the earth
    sparing the details of getting there (you should be able to figure it out if you want to double check) that works out to approximately 6.5 e22
    there is 8 orders of magnitude separation which means to make a 10% impact
    would rezuire a 10 million fold increase in generated energy to make a significant dent.(10%)

    this is an absurd concern
    rather than verbalize non-sense
    calculate and make informed decisions

    • GreenWin

      Mike Adams reminds us of a petulant little girl shouting, “You’re all just stupid!”

  • Steven Irizarry

    and its hard to near impossible to weaponize cold fusion