Google’s Suggestion for Climate Fix (JD Sweeney)

The following post by JD Sweeney is reprinted here with permission. It was originally published on his Londont website here

Readers following LENR posts on EcatWorld and on Londont know that Industrial Heat and Brillouin target their initial reactors at the heating sector. These are transitional applications in retrofitting coal-fired electricity and heating plants’ They will immediately impact CO2 emissions. BlackLight Power, with its novel plasma/photovoltaic technology goes directly for electricity generation.

Our readers also know that writers often make use of “selective quotations” to support their point of view. Therefore, without much ado (or original content), here is a selection of excerpts from a November 2014 article in IEEE Spectrum by a couple of Google engineers, Ross Koningstein and David Fork. Their title: “What it would really take to reverse Climate change”.

They begin with the assertions, “Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

[. . .]

Koningstein and Fork suggest reforestation for carbon sequestration and “exhort scientists and engineers to seek disruptive technologies.”

They write: “We’re not trying to predict the winning technology here, but its cost needs to be vastly lower than that of fossil energy systems… A disruptive fusion technology, for example, might skip the steam and produce high-energy charged particles that can be converted directly into electricity… disaster can be averted if researchers aim for goals that seem nearly impossible.”

So we’re issuing a call to action. There’s hope to avert disaster if our society takes a hard look at the true scale of the problem and uses that reckoning to shape its priorities.”

Given, the UN just extended its climate change summit in Lima, Peru, these excerpts might have put pressure on delegates to identify and agree on affordable solutions. As usual, the emphasis seems to have been on getting commitments on emission reductions (posturing) rather than means of funding research to accomplish goals (action)

The Google engineers neglected to touch upon nuclear’s radioactive issues or the emerging LENR solution; perhaps their editor wanted to leave that to the UN’s Ban Ki-moon -and to Messrs Harper and Obama.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I Googled “Disruptive Fusion” and got nothing relevant in return, considering the profile bias of Google, I would say that the phrase Disruptive Fusion Technologies describes a semantic empty set. So lets wait for the first fusion technology to disrupt and jump on that train!

    Wait is LENR even Fusion any more? Maybe this is the moment for a complete dark horse technology. Like, I don’t know lets say an Iso-Reactor, or an Iso-Catalyzer to emerge.
    Iso-Energy, Isotropic Energy, ISO-E.

    • georgehants

      Ophelia, you ask “Wait is LENR even Fusion any more?” —
      Do you think that would be a fair question should be put to the whole scientific community?
      For that to happen somebody is going to have to inform the 95% of scientists who are unaware, ignore or simply deny it’s existence.

      • psi2u2

        They are waking up, one by one……Soon it will be a veritable trickle.

        • Fortyniner

          A small but noticeable damp patch, anyway.

      • Ophelia Rump

        They as a whole claim to know nothing of it’s existence. They in a majority deny it’s existence. No, I do not think think we should be bothering their troubled minds with this question. They have important things to consider, grant moneys, and research efforts into the lineage of earwigs and such.

    • psi2u2

      I liked Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions. Is that accurate? Aren’t LENR’s usually at nanoscale? Some might object to “Low Energy,” if so “Low” could be converted into “Lightning Energy Nanoscale Reactions,” although maybe that sounds a bit too adventurous for some people.

      • Fortyniner

        I’ll stick with ‘cold fusion’ as my first choice, at least until it is proven that no nuclear fusion takes place.

  • bachcole

    I think that reforestration is a fine idea, even if I think that AGW is 99% bunk.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Glad to see this IEEE article being discussed. I posted it a little while ago on one of the ECW threads.

    I don’t agree with their basic thesis that renewables aren’t up for the job. And it seems like it’s the kind of article you would want published if you were about to unleash a new energy technology into the world in 2015. A technology along the lines of:

    “A disruptive fusion technology, for example, might skip the steam and produce high-energy charged particles that can be converted directly into electricity. “

  • Fortyniner

    Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt

  • This is explained by Groupthink theory as Modeled by Benabou

    there is a delusion trickle-down from top decision makers to those whose suffers from the bad decisions without any hope to escape.

    the basic idea of Benabou Mutual Assured Delusion is that when you cannot escape from bad decision because the group will punish you and you cannot benefit from your realism, then you refuse to see dissenting evidences and you punish those who try to show them to you.

    the more you are wounded by group delusion, the more the evidence against groupthink are great, the more you are attacking the dissenters and defending the groupthink.

    the big job of Benabou is to explain that it is simple rationality, not a psychiatric problem.
    simply people optimize not their wealth, but their believed future wealth. if they cannot increase their wealth by better decision, they take rational decision to make their illusions of wealth last longer.

    the reason there is delusion trickle-down is that if your captain, your boss, your government, your high-impact journal editor, your scientific society dean, believe in a total delusion, you can win nothing by opposing their vision, except losing your job, your funding, your reputation, your citation index, and you will change nothing on the trajectory of your titanic .
    You will just be thrown in icy water by the captain one hour before the boat drown. so, you believe the captain and enjoy the music of the orchestra, and throw those who moan on iceberg in the icy water to maintain the comfortable silence.
    It is rational, you have won 1 hour of life.

    • Bernie777

      bachcole, AlainCo, Fortyniner, Give me a break, methane being released into our atmosphere is, “the power of suggestion” Right, all progress has been made by sticking you head in the sand, rationalizing and saying “And let the rest of the world go by”.

      • bachcole

        How in the world can you go from “the power of suggestion” to the fact of methane being released into the atmosphere to the theory of AGW. It is the power of suggestion that causes you to select and group all of your facts to show that AGW is true, and it is the power of suggestion that causes me to select and group all of my facts to show that AGW is not true. We see what we believe. The fact of methane being release into the atmosphere is just another data point. AGW cannot be proven because it does not fit into a laboratory. The pattern of data is the only way to “prove” it, and we both, you and I, believers and deniers, are all cherry-picking the data to fit our beliefs.

        • Bernie777

          Absolute nonsense rationalization, 90% plus of the world is wrong and you are right, facts are staring you in the face and you are right and the facts are wrong.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Their initial comment “Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of
    carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger. Trying to
    combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy
    technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different
    approach.” has already been shown to be falsified by actual data (no significant increase in global temperature for the last 18 years). Models and extrapolations are shown to be totally wrong beyond even their error band. In fact it is far more likely that cooling will occur for at least the next couple of decades, and any new warming past that would be small. The real fear is that the end of the present interglacial is approaching, and severe cooling may return. Cold is far worse than a small amount of warming: crops would fail and people die of the cold.

  • Bernie777

    Why in the world do you insist on comparing “AGW” with LENR. The scientific facts about each are not comparable, are not in any way associated. The facts make me believe in man made climate change. The facts also make me believe in LENR.

    • bachcole

      You want to ignore the FACT that you said that since 90% plus of everyone believes in AGW, then it must be true. You also want to ignore the FACT that there was a warm period during our medieval era called the Medieval Warm Period that was much warmer than it is today with no industrialization whatsoever. You also want to ignore the FACT that we had the Little Ice Age from about 1250 to 1890, which we are probably still recovering from.

      You conveniently ignore facts that you don’t like because you are emotionally tied to AGW.