The Death of Nuclear (Fission) Power?

I came across an interesting article on vox.com titled “The rise and fall of nuclear power in 6 charts”, which features some charts taken from the 2014 Nuclear Industry Status Report and give visual presentations which provide a quick look at the current status of nuclear power, and projections into the future. You can check the article linked above for the actual charts, but these are the points they represent:

1. Nuclear Power electricity production peaked in 2005 in terms of gross energy produced. 1996 was the year when the highest percentage (17.6 percent) of the world’s electricity was produced by nuclear power plants.

2. The number of nuclear reactors in operation today is 388 — down from a high of 438 in 2002.

3. 31 countries around the world have operating nuclear power plants in them. Top 5 are: United States, France, Russia, South Korea and China.

4. 67 reactors are currently under construction — down from a peak of 186 in 1979. 49 of the reactors currently under construction have met with significant delays.

5. 14 countries have plans to build new nuclear reactors.

6. Most of the world’s existing reactors are likely to be retired by 2060, and with fewer nuclear plants coming online we could see an almost nuclear fission power-free world by that date.

The Nuclear Industry Status Report is not a nuclear industry organization; it appears to be an independent watchdog-type group that attempts to take an unbiased look at the nuclear industry. I would expect that some in the nuclear industry would dispute the idea that nuclear fission is on the wane — especially with the research and development that is being done in the Next Generation Nuclear field where reactors are being designed to be much safer than earlier versions with the ability to reuse nuclear waste.

Of course, here at E-Cat World we think about what the impact of LENR might have on the nuclear industry. In terms of nuclear energy production, the E-Cat appears to have all of the benefits of a energy-dense nuclear reaction (if that is what it is),  at high temperatures without the drawbacks of radioactive fuel, radioactive waste, and the huge expense of designing plants and processes to keep us safe from that radiation. It may be that the introduction of the E-Cat to the world could hasten the demise of the nuclear fission power industry. If it becomes obvious that the E-Cat is a much cheaper and safer alternative, it would be hard sell for governments to stick to their current plans for bringing new nuclear fission plants online. 

 

  • Gerard McEk

    The nuclear industry is clearly not the only industry which would be affected by the E-Cat, however it may take time before that happens. As long as you need one-fitfh of the of the output energy to make energy it will be difficult to use it for making electricity. Fission and oil/gas do not need no additional electrical energy except to control the process of making energy.
    If it would be possible to run the E-cat so hot that it would runaway if you would not cool it, you may be able to do without electrical heating. You would control the (unstable) situation with a cooling loop controller. The COP would be infinite then. The disadvantage is that you will not be able to control the output energy and the output energy would vary in temperature and coolant (e.g. steam) flow. I would be surprised if this wouldn’t work.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Oil / gas look a lot less efficient when extraction effort (and costs) are taken into account – and 4/5 of the power for a small LENR device is a lot higher than the power delivered by the equivalent volume of oil/gas – while the energy density of LENR is orders of magnitude higher than oil / gas. I suspect the effects of losing a fifth of the power will be felt more in the size and type of LENR deployments, which is why we are currently witnessing cooler e-Cats (for volume heat applications such as public buildings, homes, etc) and Hot Cats (where the COP increases but so does the control complexity), a very common engineering approach (for example, coal fires at home – I still remember them – as opposed to coal-fired power station furnaces). The difference with LENR is that the size and complexity of control systems is likely to decrease significantly as our understanding of LENR effects increases.

  • Gerard McEk

    The nuclear industry is clearly not the only industry which would be affected by the E-Cat, however it may take time before that happens. As long as you need one-fitfh of the of the output energy to make energy it will be difficult to use it for making electricity. Fission and oil/gas do not need no additional electrical energy except to control the process of making energy.
    If it would be possible to run the E-cat so hot that it would runaway if you would not cool it, you may be able to do without electrical heating. You would control the (unstable) situation with a cooling loop controller. The COP would be infinite then. The disadvantage is that you will not be able to control the output energy and the output energy would vary in temperature and coolant (e.g. steam) flow. I would be surprised if this wouldn’t work.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Oil / gas look a lot less efficient when extraction effort (and costs) are taken into account – and 4/5 of the power for a small LENR device is a lot higher than the power delivered by the equivalent volume of oil/gas – while the energy density of LENR is orders of magnitude higher than oil / gas. I suspect the effects of losing a fifth of the power will be felt more in the size and type of LENR deployments, which is why we are currently witnessing cooler e-Cats (for volume heat applications such as public buildings, homes, etc) and Hot Cats (where the COP increases but so does the control complexity), a very common engineering approach (for example, coal fires at home – I still remember them – as opposed to coal-fired power station furnaces). The difference with LENR is that the size and complexity of control systems is likely to decrease significantly as our understanding of LENR effects increases.

    • Broncobet

      Actually that’s one of the problems of current reactors, they need electricity, from a battery or diesel, to keep them safe. New ,better technology, like the WAMSR from Transatomic Power don’t need electricity to shut down, if all the people of earth were transported by aliens to a far off planet, WAMSR’s would safely shut down,that’s called “walk away safe”.

  • Manuel Cruz

    Nuclear power was demonized by that evil group known as the International Socialist, who controlled most oil producing countries with puppet dictators. As these countries become more and more irrelevant, it’s expected for nuclear to make a comeback. The delays and extra costs in construction of new power plants is because knowledge of building and running a nuclear plant got lost after an entire generation of idiocrats refused to create any new one for +30 years until they realized they really need them, at a time that the people that knew about the technology already died of old age.
    Once knowledge and experience in managing nuclear facilities is restored, the criticism of the ideologies that keep spreading lies about it will become void.

    The fact that there are 67 reactors under construction is the real news here. In the last decades it was literally impossible to build one because of “political insecurity” (that is, socialist politicians actively sabotaging the project as soon as they get in power), which is why the ones currently running have to be reworked to extend their lifetime. In practice, we are building new power plants inside currently existing ones because this way we avoid politician interference.

    However, this as resulted in the realization that a properly maintained nuclear plant can last at least 80 years, making the return of investment even better than it already was, and also has reduced the need of building new ones. Expect life of power plants to be extended again by 2050, when the journalists expect most of them to be closed.

    There are less nuclear power plants now, but they were closed for political reasons; socialists finding an excuse to close them in Germany using scaremongering tactics which have greatly backfired, as now their country depends now exclusively on russian gas and Russia has taken advantage of that to raise spectacularly the price. There were also nuclear plants closed on southern europe because the government planned to heavily tax nuclear to subsidize the bubble of renewable energy, and the people running them didn’t want to play the game (one of the reasons southern europe is in crisis is because the unacceptable energy costs brought by political corruption and incompetence drove away all the industry). Finally, Japanese closed power plants after the tsunami, but plan to reopen them shortly.

    In sum, Nuclear plants were forced to close by political motives, while the bubble of renewable energy has reduced the percentage on energy that is usually generated by nuclear. The article hides facts, selectively picks weird dates in their comparisons, and speaks half-truths to make it look as it nuclear is no longer profitable when it’s in fact the best energy source known to man until the arrival of the e-cat.

    People who have worked on nuclear plants know that the energy it produces is literally free, and this is indeed seen as a disadvantage by the factions that control the world.

    • Broncobet

      You are correct that nuclear was attacked by lies but they haven’t gone far ,note the attacks on this site against nuclear energy. As good as the plants made long ago and still working perfectly, the advanced reactors will be so much better. First will be SMR by NuScale it is a LWR like all are today but is different that it’s only 50 megawatts electric,it should be working by 2022,even better will be reactors cooled by molten salt, and the most advanced would have liquid fuel .

  • Donk970

    The reality is that solar and wind are good for homes but just won’t cut it for our transportation and industrial energy needs. That leaves coal and fission nuclear as our two choices right now. When you cut through all the fear mongering about nuclear you see that modern fission reactors have coal beat hands down. In the long run the nuclear power landscape will be dominated by either LENR fusion devices or by Thorium breeder reactors (probably LFTR) or both. Right now they are both on the drawing boards so it’s a horse race to see which begins producing useful amounts of energy first. My money is on LENR but I wouldn’t bet against fission just yet. One way or the other though I think that we are looking at the beginning of a nuclear renaissance.

    • Gordon Docherty

      The nice thing about LENR, for those with a hankering for the good ole’ days, is that it can be used to also power … steam engines. Good news for the tourist industry, then, and all those films that like to use steam locomotives – a good advert for “friendly” LENR.

      • US_Citizen71

        Modern steam locomotives with the firebox replaced with a LENR reactor might seem like like something out of a steampunk novel, but they would be a cheap easy method of freight transport. After all steam locomotives are how the west was won in US.

        • Fortyniner

          The only downside is that a new generation of steam locomotives driven by LENR via turbines or rotary engines would probably look more like diesels than the glamorous express steam locos of 60+ years ago.

          • US_Citizen71

            Well we have learned quite a bit about aerodynamics in the intervening years so a different look should be expected. But making one with a retro exterior and a state of the art engine should be possible for places like the Royal Gorge narrow gauge line if one desires. It is a problem I hope we will have to tackle.

          • Fortyniner

            An amazingly enterprising UK group of enthusiasts recently completed the building from scratch of a brand new mainline steam locomotive called Tornado. That’s what a steam locomotive should look like!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            It would be very romantic to sit on a LENR “choo choo” train and admire the post industrial panorama….

    • Broncobet

      Well said.

  • Donk970

    The reality is that solar and wind are good for homes but just won’t cut it for our transportation and industrial energy needs. That leaves coal and fission nuclear as our two choices right now. When you cut through all the fear mongering about nuclear you see that modern fission reactors have coal beat hands down. In the long run the nuclear power landscape will be dominated by either LENR fusion devices or by Thorium breeder reactors (probably LFTR) or both. Right now they are both on the drawing boards so it’s a horse race to see which begins producing useful amounts of energy first. My money is on LENR but I wouldn’t bet against fission just yet. One way or the other though I think that we are looking at the beginning of a nuclear renaissance.

    • Gordon Docherty

      The nice thing about LENR, for those with a hankering for the good ole’ days, is that it can be used to also power … steam engines. Good news for the tourist industry, then, and all those films that like to use steam locomotives – a good advert for “friendly” LENR.

      • US_Citizen71

        Modern steam locomotives with the firebox replaced with a LENR reactor might seem like like something out of a steampunk novel, but they would be a cheap easy method of freight transport. After all steam locomotives are how the west was won in US.

        • The only downside is that a new generation of steam locomotives driven by LENR via turbines or rotary engines would probably look more like diesels than the glamorous express steam locos of 60+ years ago.

          • US_Citizen71

            Well we have learned quite a bit about aerodynamics in the intervening years so a different look should be expected. But making one with a retro exterior and a state of the art engine should be possible for places like the Royal Gorge narrow gauge line if one desires. It is a problem I hope we will have to tackle.

          • An amazingly enterprising UK group of enthusiasts recently completed the building from scratch of a brand new main line steam locomotive called Tornado. That’s what a steam locomotive should look like! (Run the movie a little way down the page).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            It would be very romantic to sit on a LENR “choo choo” train and admire the post industrial panorama….

          • Broncobet

            So were you on vacation?

    • Broncobet

      Well said.

  • Hope4DBest

    I’ll be happy to see nuclear power die when we have something better than coal to replace it. Ah, also something that produces 100% of its energy during a windless night.

    • Fortyniner

      I already have a device that fits the bill. I call it a woodburning stove.

      Slightly more seriously, tidal power captured by artificial barrages and atolls, and extraction of methane hydrates (clathrates) from tundra and many coastal shelves would have been infinitely better options than nuclear power. GreenWin (above) lays out the reasons why nuclear power went ahead anyway. In the UK at least, the nuclear industry has made sure that tidal power was killed off some time ago by the cartel’s political proxies, who remain in power to push forward new nuclear power by any means at their disposal, and at any cost.

  • Hope4Dbest

    I’ll be happy to see nuclear power die when we have something better than coal to replace it. Ah, also something that produces 100% of its energy during a windless night.

    • I already have a device that fits the bill. I call it a woodburning stove.

      Slightly more seriously, tidal power captured by artificial barrages and atolls, and extraction of methane hydrates (clathrates) from tundra and many coastal shelves would have been infinitely better options than nuclear power. GreenWin (above) lays out the reasons why nuclear power went ahead anyway. In the UK at least, the nuclear industry has made sure that tidal power was killed off some time ago by the cartel’s political proxies, who remain in power to push forward new nuclear power by any means at their disposal, and at any cost.

      • Broncobet

        Funny thing about the hydrates, I’ve known about them since I was a youngster (I’m 62) and every ten years the estimate of their size has gone down by an order of magnitude.There is still a lot but it’s expensive and we have so much natural gas( at$3.50) that it will stay where it is (The Japonese have an active program). It show how full of it people are when they speak of peak oil.

  • Christopher Calder

    http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx

    Global Energy Corporation (GEC) has plans for a hybrid cold fusion-fission reactor, the GeNiE Hybrid (cold) Fusion Reactor. “The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time.” This new reactor design was partially based on breakthrough research conducted by the United States Navy research center, SPAWAR.

    • GreenWin

      Indeed the underlying LENR patents belong in part to the American people. Successful exploitation of this concept should therefore benefit the people. Elimination of dangerous radioactive waste has eluded the nuclear lobby since 1945. Therefor I have high hopes for the GeNiE hybrid and transmutation based solutions for the 66k tons of US nuclear waste without a “home.”

      • Fortyniner

        The French company Sodern offers neutron generators that use deuterium and tritium in what may be a LENR system. Interestingly, these devices are also called ‘Genie’:

        http://www.sodern.com/sites/en/ref/Neutron-generator_79.html

        http://www.sodern.com/sites/docs_wsw/RUB_79/Genie16GT.pdf

        • GreenWin

          It is interesting that these devices operate on 3H – albeit small amounts. I was also unaware that some commercial exit signs use 3H for luminosity. 3H is found in some of the LENR electrochemical cells – so a possible connection.

        • it seems to be a find of fusor, at least accelerator induced hot fusion

    • bachcole

      Awesome!

  • http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx

    Global Energy Corporation (GEC) has plans for a hybrid cold fusion-fission reactor, the GeNiE Hybrid (cold) Fusion Reactor. “The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time.” This new reactor design was partially based on breakthrough research conducted by the United States Navy research center, SPAWAR.

    • GreenWin

      Indeed the underlying LENR patents belong in part to the American people. Successful exploitation of this concept should therefore benefit the people. Elimination of dangerous radioactive waste has eluded the nuclear lobby since 1945. Therefor I have high hopes for the GeNiE hybrid and transmutation based solutions for the 66k tons of US nuclear waste without a “home.”

    • bachcole

      Awesome!

      • Broncobet

        I looked at Genie I don’t think they are good at anything. There is a lot of interest in fission plants using accelerators as it would shut down like a fusion plant but I have studied little about them,I garentee you can find better efforts using accelerators. Remember you have to be cleared by the NRC, if LENR has to pass NRC that will slow then down for decades and cost extra billions.That’s why you want a devise that creates a lot of energy.

  • GreenWin

    The powerful nuclear lobby financed by a cartel of nuclear power and weapons contractors ask a reasonable question: what if not nuclear fission will provide baseload power? Dr. David Toke, at Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen asks the same question, but without the spin from the nuke lobby. Looking at the UK nuclear power program, Dr. Toke reports:

    “In Britain, nuclear’s recent record for [online] availability is not outstanding – 65 per cent according to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics for the years 2008-2012. Remember this is for a technology that is supposed to be ON for as much time as possible, and the bulk of the downtime… is accounted for by unplanned, often sudden, outages that jeopardise electricity grid stability.”

    Toke points to facts about nuclear power cost overruns and schedule failures the nuclear lobby glosses over or covers up. An excellent overview of why commercial fission energy has come to an end in the West (with few exceptions like UK’s EDF boondoggle at Hinkley Point.) http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2014/07/nuclear-power-will-it-continue-to-fail.html

    The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth billions. Commercial and weapons nuclear energy is the lifeblood of the cartel and they will use any means necessary to stay in power.

    • Christopher Calder

      “The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth billions.”

      I use to post at the energy from thorium forum. They do not even allow discussion of LENR there now. The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is a very good fission design, but it does use highly radioactive materials which increases costs, and development time is very slow. I doubt that any LFTR will ever be built in the USA. People have pet projects that they get attached to. I just want the cheapest clean energy possible. Today, the best hopes seem to be LENR and simplified hot fusion (Lockheed Martin).

      • GreenWin

        Agree Chris. In the past 60 years that the nuclear lobby and its cartel of government contractors has taken control of nuclear energy. They operate without real oversight, which is why in the USA, nearly every nuclear facility under NNSA (DOE) authority is behind schedule, 200-400% over budget or a complete failure, like the National Ignition Facility and MOX processing plant (at Savannah River Site.)

        LENR replaces big hardware, dangerous materials handling and proliferation issues with accessible, clean, abundant energy. Resource-motivated wars and regional conflicts become unjustified, and biosphere destructive failure like Fukushima come to an end.

    • Hope4DBest

      “The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth billions.”

      Why the nuke lobby? How about the coal lobby? Besides the thousands of human beings that die in coal mines (China, specially) there’s the toll of air pollution. Coal, for all we know, may be killing millions every year.

      If anything, it’s the coal lobby that will fight LENR tooth and nail.

      • GreenWin

        Coal lobby are relative boyscouts. Nuke lobby are mobsters.

  • GreenWin

    The powerful nuclear lobby financed by a cartel of nuclear power and weapons contractors ask a reasonable question: what if not nuclear fission will provide baseload power? Dr. David Toke, at Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen asks the same question, but without the spin from the nuke lobby. Looking at the UK nuclear power program, Dr. Toke reports:

    “In Britain, nuclear’s recent record for [online] availability is not outstanding – 65 per cent according to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics for the years 2008-2012. Remember this is for a technology that is supposed to be ON for as much time as possible, and the bulk of the downtime… is accounted for by unplanned, often sudden, outages that jeopardise electricity grid stability.”

    Toke points to facts about nuclear power cost overruns and schedule failures the nuclear lobby glosses over or covers up. An excellent overview of why commercial fission energy has come to an end in the West (with few exceptions like UK’s EDF boondoggle at Hinkley Point.) http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2014/07/nuclear-power-will-it-continue-to-fail.html

    The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth billions. Commercial and weapons nuclear energy is the lifeblood of the cartel and they will use any means necessary to stay in power.

    • “The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth billions.”

      I use to post at the energy from thorium forum. They do not even allow discussion of LENR there now. The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is a very good fission design, but it does use highly radioactive materials which increases costs, and development time is very slow. I doubt that any LFTR will ever be built in the USA. People have pet projects that they get attached to. I just want the cheapest clean energy possible. Today, the best hopes seem to be LENR and simplified hot fusion (Lockheed Martin).

      • GreenWin

        Agree Chris. In the past 60 years that the nuclear lobby and its cartel of government contractors has taken control of nuclear energy. They operate without real oversight, which is why in the USA, nearly every nuclear facility under NNSA (DOE) authority is behind schedule, 200-400% over budget or a complete failure, like the National Ignition Facility and MOX processing plant (at Savannah River Site.)

        LENR replaces big hardware, dangerous materials handling and proliferation issues with accessible, clean, abundant energy. Resource-motivated wars and regional conflicts become unjustified, and biosphere destructive failure like Fukushima come to an end.

      • bachcole

        “They do not even allow discussion of LENR there now.” Probably because they think that is embarrassingly stupid and don’t want their thorium advocacy to be impaired by nut jobs. The more rigid they are the harder they will fall.

    • Hope4Dbest

      “The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth billions.”

      Why the nuke lobby? How about the coal lobby? Besides the thousands of human beings that die in coal mines (China, specially) there’s the toll of air pollution. Coal, for all we know, may be killing millions every year.

      If anything, it’s the coal lobby that will fight LENR tooth and nail.

      • GreenWin

        Coal lobby are relative boyscouts. Nuke lobby are mobsters.

    • bachcole

      “The nuke lobby is scrambling these days as it is aware that a hard
      validation of LENR will cancel contracts and strand assets worth
      billions.” I would like to see the evidence for that, besides telepathy. I have found telepathy to be very real and very interesting, but very unreliable.

  • GreenWin

    Every so often the skeptics here suggest that following the futures or equities markets should give us a tip as to how disruptive LENR will be.

    “French nuclear company Areva hasn’t sold a new nuclear reactor since
    2007, and the company has been struggling heavily in the wake of the
    Fukushima nuclear disaster. Now via the firm’s earnings on Friday, Reuters reports that Areva says it plans to shut down its solar thermal division, which it acquired from venture capital-backed Valley startup Ausra back in 2010.”

    http://gigaom.com/2014/08/01/struggling-nuclear-company-areva-drops-solar-division-it-acquired-from-startup-ausra/

    The really instructive part of this story is just who benefitted from the sale of the (failed) solar thermal business to Areva… None other than climate guru and former VP of the United States, Mr. Al Gore. An inconvenient truth.

    UPDATE 3-Areva’s stock plunges on sales warning, solar exit” Reuters, August 1, 2014
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/areva-results-idINL6N0Q71IK20140801

  • GreenWin

    Every so often the skeptics here suggest that following the futures or equities markets should give us a tip as to how disruptive LENR will be.

    “French nuclear company Areva hasn’t sold a new nuclear reactor since
    2007, and the company has been struggling heavily in the wake of the
    Fukushima nuclear disaster. Now via the firm’s earnings on Friday, Reuters reports that Areva says it plans to shut down its solar thermal division, which it acquired from venture capital-backed Valley startup Ausra back in 2010.”

    http://gigaom.com/2014/08/01/struggling-nuclear-company-areva-drops-solar-division-it-acquired-from-startup-ausra/

    The really instructive part of this story is just who benefitted from the sale of the (failed) solar thermal business to Areva… None other than climate guru and former VP of the United States, Mr. Al Gore. An inconvenient truth.

    UPDATE 3-Areva’s stock plunges on sales warning, solar exit” Reuters, August 1, 2014
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/areva-results-idINL6N0Q71IK20140801

  • Curbina

    As in all multibillion industries that face troubling economic times and potential irreversible obsolescence by a new disruptive technology, the Nuclear industry, which has strong ties to the defense industry, is one of the most probable sources of opposition and troubles if and when LENR gets final uncontestable validation, which IMHO is about to happen (not that at this stage have any doubts about the validity of LENR and/or Rossi technology being real, but also in a very early stage of development that will probably be its Achiles heel for a while). No one can even think that the stablished major players in the energy industry will not be attempting to assume control and take command of the advent of the LENR era. This is already happening, they won’t try to stop it, but will take a good while to see LENR being anything but “a new experimental but promising technology with a limited range of applications”, by design.

    • Donk970

      Ironically if we had pursued solid civilian reactor designs back in the 50’s and 60’s instead of designs that would produce bomb material we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Even back then there were light water reactors being tested that were not capable of melting down and were inherently far safer than what we have now. There was also the LFTR project that would have produced only a tiny fraction of the wast of modern reactors. All the programs were abandoned because they didn’t produce bomb making materials. We really do owe the mess we have today to the defense industry.

      • Curbina

        I’m aware of this Donk970, and that’s why I mention the strong ties with the defense industry, which IMHO is more than strong ties but absolute control from part of the Defense Industry of what was allowed to develop. The LFTR is proven technology also. But so do is aneutronic Hot Fusion, all kinds of cheap abundant energy have been stalled and starved of funds.

        • Broncobet

          The LFTR is a design but not one has ever been constructed. It is very complicated. You need the political will which only the Chinese have ,they are building one but first they will build a FHR alongside us.This type of nuclear energy would be a wonderful thing for the world but LENR could work or fusion. The WMSR is a really cool design also Transatomic Power ,which is in Canada and they are more intelligent about nuclear regulations than we are either of them have a lot of the benefits of a LFTR,look up some of these.

    • Broncobet

      So the solar power people will be coming to the LENR factory with pitchforks and evil intent?

      • Curbina

        Solar is a multibillion industry collectively, but not very concentrated as Nuclear industry. And Solar coupled with QUAR (lets start using it right now) is still a good idea IMHO.

  • Curbina

    As in all multibillion industries that face troubling economic times and potential irreversible obsolescence by a new disruptive technology, the Nuclear industry, which has strong ties to the defense industry, is one of the most probable sources of opposition and troubles if and when LENR gets final uncontestable validation, which IMHO is about to happen (not that at this stage have any doubts about the validity of LENR and/or Rossi technology being real, but also in a very early stage of development that will probably be its Achiles heel for a while). No one can even think that the stablished major players in the energy industry will not be attempting to assume control and take command of the advent of the LENR era. This is already happening, they won’t try to stop it, but will take a good while to see LENR being anything but “a new experimental but promising technology with a limited range of applications”, by design.

    • bachcole

      I agree, plus remember that the nuclear industry is going to have a lot a credibility still early on. They will oppose and/or steal. I guarantee it.

    • Donk970

      Ironically if we had pursued solid civilian reactor designs back in the 50’s and 60’s instead of designs that would produce bomb material we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Even back then there were light water reactors being tested that were not capable of melting down and were inherently far safer than what we have now. There was also the LFTR project that would have produced only a tiny fraction of the wast of modern reactors. All the programs were abandoned because they didn’t produce bomb making materials. We really do owe the mess we have today to the defense industry.

      • Curbina

        I’m aware of this Donk970, and that’s why I mention the strong ties with the defense industry, which IMHO is more than strong ties but absolute control from part of the Defense Industry of what was allowed to develop. The LFTR is proven technology also. But so do is aneutronic Hot Fusion, all kinds of cheap abundant energy have been stalled and starved of funds.

        • Broncobet

          The LFTR is a design but not one has ever been constructed. It is very complicated. You need the political will which only the Chinese have ,they are building one but first they will build a FHR alongside us.This type of nuclear energy would be a wonderful thing for the world but LENR could work or fusion. The WMSR is a really cool design also Transatomic Power ,which is in Canada and they are more intelligent about nuclear regulations than we are either of them have a lot of the benefits of a LFTR,look up some of these.

    • Broncobet

      So the solar power people will be coming to the LENR factory with pitchforks and evil intent?

      • Curbina

        Solar is a multibillion industry collectively, but not very concentrated as Nuclear industry. And Solar coupled with QUAR (lets start using it right now) is still a good idea IMHO.

        • Broncobet

          That’s completely false . Solar has one man at the top that controls billions of dollars and billions of people, the premier of China.

  • Hope4DBest

    There is an interesting paradox here: one of the multiple gifts of LENR to humankind is that it will make space our backyard. No more expensive, polluting, dangerous chemical rockets.

    The paradox is that this would also resolve the ONE big problem with nuclear energy: nuclear waste. With a cheap and safe way to achieve escape velocity, we can just shoot it to the sun (we know the sun has a pretty good record of turning radioactive waste into safe energy.)

    Wouldn’t it be the ultimate synergy: LENR and nuclear power?

    • mcloki

      LENR makes it possible to remove “long lived radioactive waste” Nuclear from the Energy Production equation. Just like we got rid of Unleaded gas. A concerted effort to completely remove or destroy the current nuclear waste from the planet might be the next great Worldwide “Superfund” project If LENR proves commercially viable. How long before we forget to maintain our nuclear waste? 2 Decades? less. Your idea of “shooting into the sun’ is what we should do. No reason to build “breeder” reactors to consume the waste fuel.

    • Omega Z

      “we can just shoot it to the sun”

      The question has actually been asked many times & Answered many times as to why not. It only requires 1 accident to spread nuclear fallout around the globe.
      The number of possible failures in such a scenario have been calculated & the results would be catastrophic to all life on earth.

    • Broncobet

      We can use the waste as fuel for advanced reactors. Just let them sit where they are until the new ones are built, which will take a while.

  • Hope4Dbest

    There is an interesting paradox here: one of the multiple gifts of LENR to humankind is that it will make space our backyard. No more expensive, polluting, dangerous chemical rockets.

    The paradox is that this would also resolve the ONE big problem with nuclear energy: nuclear waste. With a cheap and safe way to achieve escape velocity, we can just shoot it to the sun (we know the sun has a pretty good record of turning radioactive waste into safe energy.)

    Wouldn’t it be the ultimate synergy: LENR and nuclear power?

    • bachcole

      Don’t worry about the Solarians. I am sure that we will apply LENR technology to dealing with the nuclear waste problem long before we take advantage of it for cheaper and safer take-offs. Frank-ly (pun intended), I don’t see how LENR is going to be used for rocket take-offs. Barring some huge unforeseen development in emDrive technology, rockets still need to shoot stuff out their rears. How does a hotcat help that? E-Cats can help with the electricity, maintenance, and magnetic shielding once the craft is in space. But how does an E-Cat help with the action-reaction?

      • US_Citizen71

        A steam rocket might work. 1000C steam sent out through a nozzle might do the trick. It might be possible to use some form of accelerator to add energy to the stream such as a coil or rail gun if you can ionize the steam as well. But it is nothing that is close to being operational.

        • bachcole

          A rail gun run by E-Cat electricity (a very special kind of electricity: almost free) could get the freight ships going for the first couple of miles. And they would be as exciting as can be imagined, tossing large objects miles into the sky.

          • Broncobet

            Rail guns are not good for launching things from earth. They do have military applications which is fine since they are so expensive.There’s the General Atomics system that launches aircraft off ships and the navy uses them to shoot projectiles 200 miles. For the same effect you could use hydrogen guns which would sit in the ocean close to the equater.But there’s no need as Elon Musk will deliver affordable access to space.Go to NASA and search rail guns and hydrogen guns what I do is go to NASA and search “propulsion”.

        • US_Citizen71

          Come to think of it 1000C would likely break the water down by means of high temperature electrolysis meaning you could ignite it and gain more energy as well. The beauty would be the fuel storage only has to deal with water instead of cryogenic fuels. Combined with a rail gun as you describe could be workable but it would take the dedication along the lines of what JFK’s moon speech caused.

      • Varmlandstok

        It depends on the temperature of the LENR device.
        If it is high enough one can skip the oxygen tank which will make things much easier.

      • Hope4Dbest

        I’m thinking of a mothership powered by LENR engines (heat=power) taking rockets to a very high altitute and launching from there. Since LENR, unlike jet engines, don’t need oxygen to produce heat, we have a big jump there.

        • bachcole

          But what would be the propellant?

          • morse

            Liquid Hydrogen made by a LENR device, clean and green

          • bachcole

            How would that work? Heat the liquid hydrogen to say 1000 C and then release it like a big fart? What happens when hot hydrogen hits the atmosphere? It would sort of explode, which might very well help the propulsion.

          • Broncobet

            We already have lots of hydrogen, we will have cheap acess to space with Space-X reuseable rockets. If the EmDrive works it will be cheaper still.

    • mcloki

      LENR makes it possible to remove “long lived radioactive waste” Nuclear from the Energy Production equation. Just like we got rid of Unleaded gas. A concerted effort to completely remove or destroy the current nuclear waste from the planet might be the next great Worldwide “Superfund” project If LENR proves commercially viable. How long before we forget to maintain our nuclear waste? 2 Decades? less. Your idea of “shooting into the sun’ is what we should do. No reason to build “breeder” reactors to consume the waste fuel.

      • Broncobet

        Yes as much as I like nuclear, I am not sold on breeder reactors. The soviets have one running good luck to them, they do consume waste but they seem dangerous to me. We will have reactors that are thermal instead of fast, that use the waste.

    • Omega Z

      “we can just shoot it to the sun”

      The question has actually been asked many times & Answered many times as to why not. It only requires 1 accident to spread nuclear fallout around the globe.
      The number of possible failures in such a scenario have been calculated & the results would be catastrophic to all life on earth.

    • Broncobet

      We can use the waste as fuel for advanced reactors. Just let them sit where they are until the new ones are built, which will take a while.

  • Billy Jackson

    I believe its hard to get a good discussion or debate going for this topic due to the subject matter. People are very passionate about nuclear energy. It ranges from wide open acceptance, to complete and abject fear at the next melt down. The subject is far to political to even try to debate. Truth and facts take a side seat to what someone “knows” vs what they believe. This is true on both sides of the spectrum.

    As such be prepare to read a lot of propaganda from both sides or truths with a lot of spin on it to emphasize the points of the speakers in a better light while side stepping anything that damages that point of view. (this is true for both sides of the debate)

    I will say for the record i am for nuclear energy but recognize the inherent danger of the system. While i consider it safe.. i do realize that when nuclear energy has an accident its almost never small and has a wide area of effect that is out of proportion to most other types of accidents.. its that fear that strikes at the heart of those who oppose it and i refuse to blame them for it.

    • Broncobet

      The only serious nuclear accident in the US was long ago with no harm caused save by the rabid anti nuke luddites.

      • Private Citizen

        Hmmm, funny that you restrict your assessment to the US, so as not to include Chernobyl and Fukushima. Radiation from those disasters (and both were far from worst case scenarios) drifted over entire continents or contaminated wide swaths of ocean. Wait until an operating nuke plant gets bombed or sabotaged in an act of asymmetrical warfare. The conventional fission apologists be as equivocating as Mary Yugo the day E-Cat gets undeniably validated.

    • Alain Samoun

      “its hard to get a good discussion or debate”

      It’s not really hard Billy,the main advantage of nuke’s electricity is the
      huge produced power, that align perfectly to a centralized capitalistic
      society like in the US,France,Russia,China and Korea, but its main inconvenience is
      the cost when you addition the cost of the reactors,their maintenance for
      minimum safety,the cost of the uranium extraction,the cost of demolishing the
      reactors and the cost of getting ride of the used fuel and radioactive waste
      and finally add to all that the cost of accidents similar to Fukushima. The balance sheet is clear. It has been clear for the US for a long time,it’s clear for Germany and soon for everybody else. LENR will put the last nail in the coffin.”

      • Job001

        Nuclear cost of fuel was about $0.001/KwHr typically 140 times less than retail $0.14/KwHr, last I checked. The problem was this, nuclear is a natural monopoly, the customer pays retail, not wholesale, typically even 140 times fuel cost.

        IMO, the modern customer is getting wise to the scam. Who really wants to get their power from cartels, monopolies, war machines, or terrorism promoters who ignore externalities like job risk, climate, waste disposal, energy artificial shortage manipulation and extortion?

        Modern advanced nations may only pay 5-10% of budget for energy but the risk of extortion, climate change, inflation, and war externality costs outweigh a bit higher retail cost.

        In summary, it isn’t just nuclear that has a problem, cartels, monopolies, FF providers and war machines have overplayed their hand, overexploited their customers, and the customers are going to respond by innovation; distributed grid, solar, wind, bio, LENR(not likely monopoly owned hot fusion), and reduced use. History repeats, cartels and tyrannies painfully last but never forever.

        • GreenWin

          An accurate and refreshing assessment Job, Thanks.

        • Private Citizen

          Amazing, then that nuke plants require heavy government subsidies to exist, that the risk of accident is so unthinkably costly they can’t be insured (so the taxpayer takes that liability in the shorts), that the taxpayer also assumes the enormous cost of security (which doesn’t prevent nuke plant from becoming a force multiplier if attacked in time of war or terrorism –of course we all know war and terrorism are obsolete), that cost estimates invariably underestimate the cost of decommissioning, that nuke power has been the precursor to nuke weapons proliferation worldwide in virtually every case.

          Why, you’d think private capital would be clamoring to get in on such a great deal, without subsidy. And all of that too-cheap-to-meter nuke power must be why France is such an economic powerhouse (not) too, eh?

          Had the prevailing winds at Fukushima blown toward Tokyo instead of out to sea, a city of 13+ million would now be uninhabitable. Chernobyl also came a hairs breath away from rendering a large swath of Europe uninhabitable. Had the 911 planes hit Indian Point instead of the WTC, NYC might well no be uninhabitable. These nuke plants are all potential continent killers–oh. Oh, but that is the “old” kind of fission plant, the kind with almost 400 installations in almost 40 countries. The new kind spew rainbows and unicorns out the waste pipe.

          • Donk970

            You can make all the arguments you like about fission being bad but by any measure you like, deaths per terawatt hour, carbon emitted or even radioactive waste dumped into the environment; coal is far worse than nuclear. Solar and wind are certainly important but just wont cut it for all our energy needs so we are basically down to coal or nuclear. It’s not a question of wether or not to use nuclear it’s a question of making it safer to use. This conundrum is what makes LENR so attractive, it sidesteps the basic problem of deciding wether to kill ourselves quickly by continuing to use coal or a lot more slowly by using nuclear.

          • Private Citizen

            “coal is far worse than nuclear”

            When someone bombs a coal plant, does it spew a cancer causing radioactive cloud over thousands of square miles?

          • Donk970

            You don’t need to bomb a coal power plant to get the cancer causing radioactive cloud. Normal day to day operations does that just fine. Coal is full of all sorts of nasty stuff including heavy metals radioactive radon and other radioactive elements. Burning coal puts all that wonderful stuff into the air or into huge fly ash piles that then find their way into the environment. Coal causes more deaths per terawatt hour of electricity produced than nuclear by a wide margin. All of the accidents with nuclear plants were very old plants with inherent design flaws that lead to the disaster. Those power plants, however, are like the vacuum tube ENIAC computer compared to todays Apple laptop. Let’s make our decisions based on modern designs not the 60 year old monstrosities we built to win the nuclear war.

          • Private Citizen

            The dosage of radiation living with 50 miles of Chernobyl or Fulkushima is thousands of times that of living the same distance from a coal plant; the isotopic spectrum is far different as well, and the issue of ongoing disaster after bombing was ignored blatantly.

            Scientific American article points out, the radioactive content of fly ash is relatively low, and nearby residents are more likely to be struck by lightning than to develop health effects from that radiation

            Surely you are justifying $trillion dollar nuclear disasters with untold casualties (based upon extrapolations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation induced damage the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl alone ) by saying that the cumulative damage from coal plants is worse?

            But who is championing coal in this false dichotomy?? Not me.

          • Job001

            It’s complicated, I somewhat agree and like that.

          • GreenWin

            Thank you Citizen. It is your willingness to speak out against the insanity that manifests the cure. G’bless.

        • Job001

          I meant scam in a narrow way more like falsely imagining we can regulate the unregulatable, the super wealthy, the dictator, the king, and so forth.

      • Doug Cutler

        Two jurisdictions often cited as poster children for nuclear are Ontario and France. Ontario has looked at new nuclear and turned it down because of extraordinary costs. France has a brand new energy plan calling for a markedly reduced dependence on nuclear over coming years.

        • Anon2012_2014

          This article, an article about Putin holding Europe hostage to gas, plus a new article on coal, just tells how desperate the world is for Rossi’s invention.

          We need it now and it is essentially criminally evil to hold the project off the market if Rossi/IH has proof it works and is not sharing it. Each day that it is delayed people die.

          I for one am getting tired of tired promises to release test results in the future, or to wait until the 1 MW plant takes over economically.

          Let us see a working device that can be publicly scrutinized. Rossi says he wants to help children with cancer. So does everyone. But the number of people dying right now over poor energy choices like Fukushima or Dirty Coal and the hostages of the fossil fuel producer’s military/economic power projection, like Iran and Russia, means that this LENR invention has to be released right now. No more excuses.

          Rossi — let’s go already.

          • GreenWin

            Before attacking Rossie, why not direct your altruism toward the U.S. military black projects?? They got all kinds of high tech locked up – paid for by TAXPAYERS.

            “Unlimited energy too cheap to meter: 63 years “R&D,” $250 Billion taxpayer dollars, not one Watt useful energy. Millions starve. Thanks “criminally evil” hot fusion.

          • Anon2012_2014

            “why not direct your altruism toward the U.S. military”

            Non sequitur — it doesn’t follow anything. I.e. why not sprout wings and fly — that does not follow either.

          • Omega Z

            I think you & many others will be sorely disappointed when this technology is available. It will take far longer to transition then you think.
            The World spends about 5% of GDP building out energy projects. This will not change by much. On the plus side, It wont need all the subsidies & tax breaks that are currently in place to promote that 5% GDP expenditures we experience now..

          • Obvious

            The more delays Rossi has, the more likely someone else will replicate and display a working device independently. Supposedly there are three replications already. Instead of blaming Rossi, get cracking on a replication, start a crowd fund for a replication, get a crowd fund to buy out IH and release the construction details to the world, or do something positive in that direction.

            No point waiting for someone else to save the world for you: if you want the world saved, go save it.

    • Broncobet

      Yeah, I agree with you Billy, I like nuclear power, but of course I have concerns about safety, cost, terrorism, and waste but you can’t have a civil discussion with the anti nuke faction. I am really pleasantly surprised by the large percentage of intelligent well educated ,nuclear supporters on this blog. Here’s a dirty little secret ,if you read about advanced nuclear systems not yet operating, as I do , they make the present reactors look bad by comparison.That doesn’t mean shut the old ones down, you’d just burn more coal and that’s four times more radioactive that nuke plants.

  • Billy Jackson

    I believe its hard to get a good discussion or debate going for this topic due to the subject matter. People are very passionate about nuclear energy. It ranges from wide open acceptance, to complete and abject fear at the next melt down. The subject is far to political to even try to debate. Truth and facts take a side seat to what someone “knows” vs what they believe. This is true on both sides of the spectrum.

    As such be prepare to read a lot of propaganda from both sides or truths with a lot of spin on it to emphasize the points of the speakers in a better light while side stepping anything that damages that point of view. (this is true for both sides of the debate)

    I will say for the record i am for nuclear energy but recognize the inherent danger of the system. While i consider it safe.. i do realize that when nuclear energy has an accident its almost never small and has a wide area of effect that is out of proportion to most other types of accidents.. its that fear that strikes at the heart of those who oppose it and i refuse to blame them for it.

    • Broncobet

      The only serious nuclear accident in the US was long ago with no harm caused save by the rabid anti nuke luddites.

      • Private Citizen

        Hmmm, funny that you restrict your assessment to the US, so as not to include Chernobyl and Fukushima. Radiation from those disasters (and both were far from worst case scenarios) drifted over entire continents or contaminated wide swaths of ocean. And Fukushima is far from over, still belching terabecquerels and still melting corium down into the water table. Wait until an operating nuke plant gets bombed or sabotaged in an act of asymmetrical warfare. The conventional fission apologists be as equivocating as Mary Yugo the day E-Cat gets undeniably validated.

        • Broncobet

          So you’re saying the E-Cat is not undeniably validated?

          • Alain Samoun

            He means undeniably validated by the scientific community, like it should be when the next report is published. But you knew that Broncobet! TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes are undeniable…

          • Broncobet

            TMI was a catastrophe?? The people who live next to three mile island have no objections to the remaining reactors. Fukashima radiation killed no one. The one that is interesting is Chernobyl, I would have assumed that with the amount of radiation spread as well as authorities delaying the issuance of iodine tablets ,especially to children, that at least tens of thousands would have perished from cancer, but that appears not to be the case. If nuclear power killed a million it would still be far safer than the alternative of coal(which contains Urainium that goes right up the chimney). I don’t know if this is true, but I read somewhere that Chernobyl reactors were stolen by the soviets from the US and they were designed to produce not power but Plutonium for warheads and that they stole a rough draft that wasn’t finished. I do know this; there are four more of them in Western Ukraine and the trouble there can’t make anyone feel good. Newer is sometimes better and there are designs for reactors that are safer and destroy waste are proliferation resistant and cost less. The main problem is the uneducated masses that are easily frightened.

        • Broncobet

          The oceans have so much radioactivity in them we can mine them for Uranium ,we’ve lived with low levels of radioactivity for 4 billion years.There’s a place in Iran with backround levels a thousand times higher than background and there are no ill effects. The sun is radioactive that’s why you have radiation burns with only three or four hours in it, if you lay on the beach for eight hours you’ll have radiation poisoning and you throw up a lot.Hospitals are full of some pretty dangerous radioactive isotopes,but we don’t mind ,just as people like you don’t mind using nuclear electricity to use your computer.

    • Alain Samoun

      “its hard to get a good discussion or debate”

      It’s not really hard Billy,the main advantage of nuke’s electricity is the
      huge produced power, that align perfectly to a centralized capitalistic
      society like in the US,France,Russia,China and Korea, but its main inconvenience is
      the cost: When you addition the cost of the reactors,their maintenance for
      minimum safety,the cost of the uranium extraction,the cost of demolishing the
      reactors and the cost of getting rid of the used fuel and radioactive waste
      and finally add to all of that the cost of accidents similar to Fukushima. The balance sheet is clear. It has been clear for the US for a long time,it’s clear for Germany and soon for everybody else. LENR will put the last nail in the coffin.

      • Job001

        Nuclear cost of fuel was about $0.001/KwHr typically 140 times less than retail $0.14/KwHr, last I checked. The problem was this, nuclear is a natural monopoly, the customer pays retail, not wholesale, typically even 140 times fuel cost.

        IMO, the modern customer is getting wise to the scam. Who really wants to get their power from cartels, monopolies, war machines, or terrorism promoters who ignore externalities like job risk, climate, waste disposal, energy artificial shortage manipulation and extortion?

        Modern advanced nations may only pay 5-10% of budget for energy but the risk of extortion, climate change, inflation, and war externality costs outweigh a bit higher retail cost.

        In summary, it isn’t just nuclear that has a problem, cartels, monopolies, FF providers and war machines have overplayed their hand, overexploited their customers, and the customers are going to respond by innovation; distributed grid, solar, wind, bio, LENR(not likely monopoly owned hot fusion), and reduced use. History repeats, cartels and tyrannies painfully last but never forever.

        • GreenWin

          An accurate and refreshing assessment Job, Thanks.

        • Private Citizen

          Amazing, then that nuke plants require heavy government subsidies to exist, that the risk of accident is so unthinkably costly they can’t be insured (so the taxpayer takes that liability in the shorts), that the taxpayer also assumes the enormous cost of security (which doesn’t prevent nuke plant from becoming a force multiplier if attacked in time of war or terrorism –of course we all know war and terrorism are obsolete), that cost estimates invariably underestimate the cost of decommissioning or storing the deadly waste virtually forever, that nuke power has been the precursor to nuke weapons proliferation worldwide in virtually every case.

          Heck, it’s perfectly safe, until it mega-tragically isn’t. When the black swan swims the fanboys shrug it off, in complete self delusion. No worse than eating a banana, you Luddites.

          Why, you’d think private capital would be clamoring to get in on such a great deal, without subsidy. And all of that too-cheap-to-meter nuke power must be why France is such an economic powerhouse (not) too, eh?

          Had the prevailing winds at Fukushima blown toward Tokyo instead of out to sea, a city of 13+ million would now be uninhabitable. Chernobyl also came a hair’s breadth away from rendering a large swath of Europe uninhabitable. Had the 911 planes hit Indian Point instead of the WTC, NYC might well now be uninhabitable. These nuke plants are all potential continent killers. –Oh, but that is the “old” kind of fission plant, the kind with almost 400 installations in almost 40 countries. The new kind spew rainbows and unicorns out the waste pipe.

          • Donk970

            You can make all the arguments you like about fission being bad but by any measure you like, deaths per terawatt hour, carbon emitted or even radioactive waste dumped into the environment; coal is far worse than nuclear. Solar and wind are certainly important but just wont cut it for all our energy needs so we are basically down to coal or nuclear. It’s not a question of wether or not to use nuclear it’s a question of making it safer to use. This conundrum is what makes LENR so attractive, it sidesteps the basic problem of deciding wether to kill ourselves quickly by continuing to use coal or a lot more slowly by using nuclear.

          • Private Citizen

            “coal is far worse than nuclear”

            When someone bombs a coal plant, does it spew a cancer causing radioactive cloud over thousands of square miles, leaving behind an ongoing disaster we currently have no technology to stop (as is Fukushima)?

          • Donk970

            You don’t need to bomb a coal power plant to get the cancer causing radioactive cloud. Normal day to day operations does that just fine. Coal is full of all sorts of nasty stuff including heavy metals radioactive radon and other radioactive elements. Burning coal puts all that wonderful stuff into the air or into huge fly ash piles that then find their way into the environment. Coal causes more deaths per terawatt hour of electricity produced than nuclear by a wide margin. All of the accidents with nuclear plants were very old plants with inherent design flaws that lead to the disaster. Those power plants, however, are like the vacuum tube ENIAC computer compared to todays Apple laptop. Let’s make our decisions based on modern designs not the 60 year old monstrosities we built to win the nuclear war.

          • Private Citizen

            The dosage of radiation living with 50 miles of Chernobyl or Fulkushima is thousands of times that of living the same distance from a coal plant; the isotopic spectrum is far different as well, and the issue of ongoing disaster after bombing was ignored blatantly.

            Scientific American article points out, the radioactive content of fly ash is relatively low, and nearby residents are more likely to be struck by lightning than to develop health effects from that radiation

            Surely you are justifying $trillion dollar nuclear disasters with untold casualties (based upon extrapolations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation induced damage the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl alone ) by saying that the cumulative damage from coal plants is worse?

            But who is championing coal in this false dichotomy?? Not me.

          • Broncobet

            The fly ash is dangerous because it is so massive and flood and engulf people. Nuclear is safer than coal.Your information is incorrect.

          • Broncobet

            They don’t have to bomb it ,the filth is pouring out of the chimney night and day.

          • Broncobet

            You can’t tell these “experts” anything they already know it all.

          • Job001

            It’s complicated, I somewhat agree and like that.

          • GreenWin

            Thank you Citizen. It is your willingness to speak out against the insanity that manifests the cure. G’bless.

        • bachcole

          I don’t see a scam. I do see a bad investment perhaps, but not a scam. That 140 times wholesale is the company trying to recoup it’s investment in building the plant in the first place. ALL of these companies are closely monitored by the various public utilities commissions, and the members of those commissions understand the NECESSITY of paying off the loans necessary to build the plant in the first place.

          • Job001

            I meant scam in a narrow way more like falsely imagining we can regulate the unregulatable, the Fed, the dictator, the king, Global Corporations, billionaires and so forth.

        • Broncobet

          You will change one master for another.

      • Doug Cutler

        Two jurisdictions often cited as poster children for nuclear are Ontario and France. Ontario has looked at new nuclear and turned it down because of extraordinary costs. France has a brand new energy plan calling for a markedly reduced dependence on nuclear over coming years.

        • Broncobet

          Canada is a great place for nuclear power as they developed their own brand completely different from ours. They’re known as CANDU it’s an acronym . There is a small company with a brilliant leader something like Dr LeBlanc and the co. is Terrestrial Power. He has a great design that uses nuclear waste and is cheaper. The great advantage is he is not bound by the NRC (unless he sold one to us) so their nuclear office will let him proceed for billions less and a decade faster. Where nuclear is needed so much is in the tar sands, now they burn natural gas to get it out which is a great waste and bad for the climate. Also, and this applies to Rossi, they can just use their heat with out developing the steam turbine etc. which is so expensive.

      • Broncobet

        Above I focused on the lack of recycling used nuclear fuel but left one out ;the French recycle all their fuel and take what’s left and put it in the floor of the nuclear administrations lobby so when some one asks about the used fuel they can say “you’re walking on it”. I am glad that we in the US did not follow this route (chemical processing) It’s expensive and has proliferation problems. We can leave the fuel where it is but we have to have plants that use it up as fuel as I agree that letting it sit where it is not acceptable for the long term.

    • Broncobet

      Yeah, I agree with you Billy, I like nuclear power, but of course I have concerns about safety, cost, terrorism, and waste but you can’t have a civil discussion with the anti nuke faction. I am really pleasantly surprised by the large percentage of intelligent well educated ,nuclear supporters on this blog. Here’s a dirty little secret ,if you read about advanced nuclear systems not yet operating, as I do , they make the present reactors look bad by comparison.That doesn’t mean shut the old ones down, you’d just burn more coal and that’s four times more radioactive that nuke plants.

  • Daniel Maris

    We hear the same every time. But as I have already pointed you are for some reason discounting deliberate action by terrorists – either sleepers or people attacking from outside.

  • US_Citizen71

    A steam rocket might work. 1000C steam sent out through a nozzle might do the trick. It might be possible to use some form accelerator to add energy to the stream such as a coil or rail gun if you can ionize the steam as well. But it is nothing that is close to being operational.

    • US_Citizen71

      Come to think of it 1000C would likely break the water down by means of high temperature electrolysis meaning you could ignite it and gain more energy as well. The beauty would be the fuel storage only has to deal with water instead of cryogenic fuels. Combined with a rail gun as you describe could be workable but it would take the dedication along the lines of what JFK’s moon speech caused.

  • Hope4DBest

    I’m thinking of a mothership powered by LENR engines (heat=power) taking rockets to a very high altitute and launching from there. Since LENR, unlike jet engines, don’t need oxygen to produce heat, we have a big jump there.

  • Broncobet

    Yes ,some of next generation power plants will recycle waste but not much. There Russian fast reactor and the British would like the Prism from GE,also Bill Gates would use depleted Uranium which isn’t radioactive waste and there’s enough to last thousands of years.On the whole there actually isn’t a lot of recycling ability .That why the news of Peter Thiel investing 2 million in Transatomic is such great news. This will use the so called waste and burn it safely extracting the energy leaving a small amount of slightly radioactive fuel. It’s much smaller and cheaper and they look to private money for funds as Washington has no idea what to do.They would reduce all the fuel ever burned in the US to a size that would fit under a table.

  • jousterusa

    POWER, A Story of Cold Fusion – praisded by Andreas Rossi and Cold Fusion Now editor Greg Goble (ignored by Frank, though), is now available on free downloadable Kindle readers on Amazon!

    • I have not read the book, but I can say this paragraph is allot of crap.

      “Americans know that big energy companies buy up new money-saving inventions so they don’t reach the marketplace. In POWER, Joe Shea tells the exciting story of how President Barack Obama uses his executive powers to outwit the fossil-fuel barons and make cleaner air and vastly improved energy devices – along with amazing savings – available to everyone.”

      Obama belongs in jail for his biofuel hoax, causing food prices to skyrocket around the world. Obama knows nothing about energy production.

      • US_Citizen71

        Food prices skyrocketed not because the US used corn to make ethanol but because China and India decided to hold on to more of their rice instead of exporting it. US corn is not that big of an export commodity too many countries are afraid of the GMO corn we grow and ban it for import.

  • Anon2012_2014

    This article, an article about Putin holding Europe hostage to gas, plus a new article on coal, just tells how desperate the world is for Rossi’s invention.

    We need it now and it is essentially criminally evil to hold the project off the market if Rossi/IH has proof it works and is not sharing it. Each day that it is delayed people die.

    I for one am getting tired of tired promises to release test results in the future, or to wait until the 1 MW plant takes over economically.

    Let us see a working device that can be publicly scrutinized. Rossi says he wants to help children with cancer. So does everyone. But the number of people dying right now over poor energy choices like Fukushima or Dirty Coal and the hostages of the fossil fuel producer’s military/economic power projection, like Iran and Russia, means that this LENR invention has to be released right now. No more excuses.

    Rossi — let’s go already.

    • GreenWin

      Before attacking Rossie, why not direct your altruism toward the U.S. military black projects?? They got all kinds of high tech locked up – paid for by TAXPAYERS.

      “Unlimited energy too cheap to meter: 63 years “R&D,” $250 Billion taxpayer dollars, not one Watt useful energy. Millions starve. Thanks “criminally evil” hot fusion.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “why not direct your altruism toward the U.S. military”

        Non sequitur — it doesn’t follow anything. I.e. why not sprout wings and fly — that does not follow either.

        • Omega Z

          I think you & many others will be sorely disappointed when this technology is available. It will take far longer to transition then you think.
          The World spends about 5% of GDP building out energy projects. This will not change by much. On the plus side, It wont need all the subsidies & tax breaks that are currently in place to promote that 5% GDP expenditures we experience now..

    • bachcole

      And I think that you are being childish. If there were no Andrea Rossi, there would be no hope. Being Andrea Rossi currently takes a lot of courage and determination, and you are unappreciative of his sacrifices and not trusting the obviously many good reasons that things are taking more time than you expect. These character flaws on your part are not his fault.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “And I think that you are being childish.” Ad hominem.

        “are unappreciative of his sacrifices and not trusting the obviously many good reasons that things are taking more time”

        I am appreciative of sacrifice if he is making — except I do not know what he is sacrificing. Is it his reputation? He seems to have work and money.

        “Not trusting “good” reasons for delays”. –Trust but verify.

        “These character flaws on your part.” –More ad hominem non sequitur stuff.

        • bachcole

          You can’t verify right now, so you can either fret or be patient. It is your choice.

        • bachcole

          I am not attacking your ideas by saying that you are being childish. I am admonishing you for being childish.

    • Obvious

      The more delays Rossi has, the more likely someone else will replicate and display a working device independently. Supposedly there are three replications already. Instead of blaming Rossi, get cracking on a replication, start a crowd fund for a replication, get a crowd fund to buy out IH and release the construction details to the world, or do something positive in that direction.

      No point waiting for someone else to save the world for you: if you want the world saved, go save it.

  • Leo Kaas
  • Donk970

    The biggest problem, by far, with nuclear in general is Capitalists. Any self respecting Capitalist is going to build the cheapest nuclear power plant they can, pocket the savings and then blame the government when the thing blows up. Works every time.

    • Daniel Maris

      Chernobyl?

      It’s a dangerous, concentrated, technology full stop.

    • bachcole

      Yeah, what Daniel Maris said. How could you publicly wallow in your anti-capitalist neurosis when it is so obvious that one of the three big nuke accidents happened in a communist country, where everything is sunshine and flowers and everyone holds hands and sings kum ba ya.

      • Donk970

        It’s important to remember that a Communist country like the old USSR or China functions like a single big corporation with all of the problems of greed and irresponsibility in the upper management.

      • Donk970

        The other issue I take with your statement is that the Chernobyl power plant was built by a Russian corporation called Rosatom. Like any corporation, even one supposedly controlled by a government, Rosatom had the duty to make a profit. Also like most corporations the people running Rosatom and making decisions were never held accountable. In fact Rosatom is still in business building nuclear power plants not only in Russia but also in Europe. At the end of the day corporate greed and stupidity is almost always the root cause of these kinds of disasters.

        • Omega Z

          I have never seen a Corrupt or Greedy Corporation.
          Only Corrupt Greedy Individuals.
          I see them everywhere.
          Running or working for Corporations, Mom & Pop business.
          Government Officials. Law enforcement, Lawyers, Doctors.
          My neighbors, Friends, Employees & family.
          Democracy, Socialism, Monarchies, Dictators.
          There Everywhere… It’s People. Note Science has also witnessed similar behavior in the animal kingdom.

    • free market goes with total ersponsibility.
      taleb explain than the old Amurabi code was saying that if the house build by an architect colapsed, the architect should be killed.

      do the same for capitalist, with no hate.

      entrepreneurs, real one, do that. they bet their life in their adventures and crash with it.
      of course if the crash is only money you can only decare them backrupt, but they should suffer from their failure.

      some of todays pretended capitalism is crony.
      too big to save, socializes loses and privatize benefits, is not free market capitalism. it is aristocratic capitalism.

      • orsobubu

        AlainCo, capitalism you are referring to is the old, XIX century classic capitalism. But, after the year 1900, it turned to imperialistic capitalism. As Lenin describes it, imperialism is 1-monopolism 2-finance more important than production 3-capital exportation 4-world market competition 5-strategical subdivision of the world in influence spheres

        “Real”, classic capitalists, with responsabilities, free market-driven ethics, are long time dead. Modern imperialism is very different, and it is strictly connected to state capitalism. Without state intervention, capitalism would be already extinct. Russia, China, etc were state capitalist countries since the beginning of their bourgeoise seize of power, while US and Europe started turning state capitalistic later on, after the second world war with the first economic crisis of the ’60 and ’70. recent economic events of public bailout and socialization of losses are the clear proofs that von mises-style classic free market capitalistic tools are relic of the past.

  • Donk970

    The biggest problem, by far, with nuclear in general is Capitalists. Any self respecting Capitalist is going to build the cheapest nuclear power plant they can, pocket the savings and then blame the government when the thing blows up. Works every time.

    • bachcole

      Yeah, what Daniel Maris said. How could you publicly wallow in your anti-capitalist neurosis when it is so obvious that one of the three big nuke accidents happened in a communist country, where everything is sunshine and flowers and everyone holds hands and sings kum ba ya.

      • Donk970

        It’s important to remember that a Communist country like the old USSR or China functions like a single big corporation with all of the problems of greed and irresponsibility in the upper management.

        • bachcole

          Communism is basically the premise that good and evil and all human welfare depend upon who is owning and controlling the means of production. The USA Constitution’s big premise is that good and evil and most human welfare depend upon the character and choices that individuals make. Consequently, Communism does take care of the problems of ownership of the means of production, but it completely ignores the human heart and all of the evils that can fester there, like greed for power and racism. The USA Constitution has these checks and balances so as to keep tyrannies from arising, knowing full well that power corrupts.

          This is why ALL attempts to create Communist like regimes fail, because people with a craving for power get in charge of the dictatorship of the proletariat and have a lot of fun at the expense of others.

          But most of you already knew all of this. Only those controlled by their wishful thinking need a reminder.

      • Donk970

        The other issue I take with your statement is that the Chernobyl power plant was built by a Russian corporation called Rosatom. Like any corporation, even one supposedly controlled by a government, Rosatom had the duty to make a profit. Also like most corporations the people running Rosatom and making decisions were never held accountable. In fact Rosatom is still in business building nuclear power plants not only in Russia but also in Europe. At the end of the day corporate greed and stupidity is almost always the root cause of these kinds of disasters.

        • Omega Z

          I have never seen a Corrupt or Greedy Corporation.
          Only Corrupt Greedy Individuals.
          I see them everywhere.
          Running or working for Corporations, Mom & Pop business.
          Government Officials. Law enforcement, Lawyers, Doctors.
          My neighbors, Friends, Employees & family.
          Democracy, Socialism, Monarchies, Dictators.
          There Everywhere… It’s People. Note Science has also witnessed similar behavior in the animal kingdom.

          • bachcole

            But it is true the every thing that corporations do, both externally and internally, depends upon the flow of money. Individuals who acquire this money can use it to hire prostitutes or give to charities or go back to school or feed their families or hire hitmen or give to political parties or buy cars. My point is that money is quality neutral. It has no heart and no moral sensibilities. Those things depend upon the heart and character of the person with the money. If a corporation is to survive and thrive, it has to produce an excess of this morally neutral stuff called money.

            The smaller the company, and the less dependent it is upon public share holders, the more likely it is to be quality oriented. Individuals leaders and workers can decide to do the right thing. But it is difficult for the board of directors answerable to shareholders, who are expect a return on their investments, to do the right thing.

    • free market goes with total ersponsibility.
      taleb explain than the old Amurabi code was saying that if the house build by an architect colapsed, the architect should be killed.

      do the same for capitalist, with no hate.

      entrepreneurs, real one, do that. they bet their life in their adventures and crash with it.
      of course if the crash is only money you can only decare them backrupt, but they should suffer from their failure.

      some of todays pretended capitalism is crony.
      too big to save, socializes loses and privatize benefits, is not free market capitalism. it is aristocratic capitalism.

      • orsobubu

        AlainCo, capitalism you are referring to is the old, XIX century classic capitalism. But, after the year 1900, it turned to imperialistic capitalism. As Lenin describes it, imperialism is 1-monopolism 2-finance more important than production 3-capital exportation 4-world market competition 5-strategical subdivision of the world in influence spheres

        “Real”, classic capitalists, with responsabilities, free market-driven ethics, are long time dead. Modern imperialism is very different, and it is strictly connected to state capitalism. Without state intervention, capitalism would be already extinct. Russia, China, etc were state capitalist countries since the beginning of their bourgeoise seize of power, while US and Europe started turning state capitalistic later on, after the second world war with the first economic crisis of the ’60 and ’70. recent economic events of public bailout and socialization of losses are the clear proofs that von mises-style classic free market capitalistic tools are relic of the past.

    • Broncobet

      Think about how hard it is to get a license to build a nuclear plant in the US the NRC is in charge go to their website, the lowest bidder does not get to build one.

    • Broncobet

      The biggest problem by far is the NRC making things too beaurocratic .Other countries are far better at regulation even if we have the best scientists and engineers.

  • The USA could lead the world in next generation modular nuclear power plants. We could export them to the rest of the world like we export cars and get rich in the process.
    Unfortunately this would be a body blow to the fossil fuel industry which has spent a lot of money buying congress; So it won’t happen.

    • We will always need oil to make chemicals. The oil companies will invest in LENR and still make money drilling for crude. The coal industry, however, remains in trouble.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        86 million barrels of oil a day to make chemicals? If LENR takes off, oil industry will be hurt, the big question is will they let it.

        • bachcole

          The oil industry is not in a position to allow or disallow LENR+. They may try to slow it down, but that would be sort of suicidal if anyone found out. And in the age of the Internet, bad PR is the kiss of death.

          • Many oil company made research in LENR and shared it.
            I even know one that is making experiment in Germany. A big one. Dunno what exactly, probably just tiny lab.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Some oil interests have disrupted, delayed LENR. “Slowing it down” is all they need to do, their lobbyists have many more tricks up their sleeves.

        • Omega Z

          The Basics
          U.S. refineries produce about “19” gallons of gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil. The remainder yields other refined products, such as distillate and residual fuel oils, jet fuel, and petroleum coke & other feed stocks which vary from month to month as refiners focus operations to meet demand for different products. Note: Gasoline conversion is dependent on Oil type/grade. Usually 17 to 21 gallons per barrel… The rest is feed stock or distillates.

          Note: Oil is headed for a demise with or without LENR whether replaced or priced out of use. Either way, your looking at about 25 to 30 years. Big Oil already knows this. LENR technology may just help avoid a sudden crash sometime down the road.

          While many are hoping for fossil fuel demise, I have a different view. That LENR will help preserve these Fossil resources for future needs. They will be needed for a very, very long time. We may yet regret wasting these resources for our present energy needs.

    • Broncobet

      This is true although everything is not going perfectly. Look up NuScale and go to their website ,the inventer and leader of this effort is Jose Reyes. They are owned and backed by Flour so the can do a lot. The trouble is that in this government program there were to be two companies there are the other is B&W who you think would go all out but is unhappy they couldn’t find an investor to take part of their piece. So they will go forward but slowly. We should have NuScale reactors running by 2022. Which will be great but they are still light water reactors and molten salt is a better coolant, and China is moving very quickly and they will win all the export markets with the bad leadership we’ve had here.

      • Yes I think it is bad leadership on our part mixed with paradoxically inefficient-bad-over regulation, and a great deal of fear mongering by the fake or deluded greens, and a political process that is hamstrung by special interest.
        The problem with our democracy is we are getting the Government we Deserve.
        It’s tempting to just say F-it, and give up on trying to make the world better. Most people have checked-out and are only interested in things that don’t matter, Sports, Gossip, Yahoo News.
        Why worry? The world will last long enough for me.

  • morse

    Liquid Hydrogen made by a LENR device, clean and green

    • bachcole

      How would that work? Heat the liquid hydrogen to say 1000 C and then release it like a big fart? What happens when hot hydrogen hits the atmosphere? It would sort of explode, which might very well help the propulsion.

  • Alain Samoun

    He means undeniably validated by the scientific community, like it should be when the next report is published. But you knew that Broncobet! TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes are undeniable…

    • Broncobet

      TMI was a catastrophe?? The people who live next to three mile island have no objections to the remaining reactors. Fukashima radiation killed no one. The one that is interesting is Chernobyl, I would have assumed that with the amount of radiation spread as well as authorities delaying the issuance of iodine tablets ,especially to children, that at least tens of thousands would have perished from cancer, but that appears not to be the case. If nuclear power killed a million it would still be far safer than the alternative of coal(which contains Urainium that goes right up the chimney). I don’t know if this is true, but I read somewhere that Chernobyl reactors were stolen by the soviets from the US and they were designed to produce not power but Plutonium for warheads and that they stole a rough draft that wasn’t finished. I do know this; there are four more of them in Western Ukraine and the trouble there can’t make anyone feel good. Newer is sometimes better and there are designs for reactors that are safer and destroy waste are proliferation resistant and cost less. The main problem is the uneducated masses that are easily frightened.

  • Many oil company made research in LENR and shared it.
    I even know one that is making experiment in Germany. A big one. Dunno what exactly, probably just tiny lab.

  • Bernie777

    Some oil interests have disrupted, delayed LENR. “Slowing it down” is all they need to do, their lobbyists have many more tricks up their sleeves.