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.

  • Gerard McEk

    It seems to me that these guys refer to the Focus Fusion of LPP Fusion, which is a hot fusion project: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/13/company-claims-focus-fusion-power-possible-within-one-year/. To avoid to be called a pseudo- or pathetic scientist, this is more ‘safe’ to refer to than LENR or Cold Fusion, at least at this moment in time. But no doubt when you talk with them privately, they may include LENR/CF as well. I agree with them that scientists should be looking much wider than solar-, wind- hot fusion- and fission technologies and to short term solutions and to potentially disruptive technologies.

  • 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.

  • 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 that 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.

        • A small but noticeable damp patch, anyway, followed perhaps by the occasional drip.

      • 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 think that there will be many names for the new fire.

      I liked Low Energy Nano-scale 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” to yield “Lightning Energy Nano-scale Reactions,” although maybe that sounds a bit too adventurous for some people, in which case we could try, ELENR, “EnLightening Energy Nano-scale Reactions.”

      The Rossi variant might be “ECNR,” or “E-Cat Nanoscale Reactor.”

      These would all be, at heart, -NRs, or types of Nanoscale Reactions (or reactors as the case may be).

      In any case, I suggest the industry adopt the emblem of the lightening bug, in honor that they went before to make light from nature.

      • 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.

  • bachcole

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

    • David

      Lima Climate Conference – Methane Emergency

      “We all need to pray about this arctic methane emergency because as I’ve said to many here, this is the smoking gun going off. If we don’t deal with this methane emergency, we have very slim prospects of survival in my personal opinion.”

      http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop20/events/2014-12-06-12-00-abibimman-foundation-arctic-methane-emergency

      http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop20/events/2014-12-11-17-00-abibimman-foundation-rethinking-economics-in-the-age-of-climate-change

      http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2014/12/08/accelerating-towards-an-arctic-blue-ocean-event/

      • bachcole

        David, I will not be losing any sleep over this matter. My toilet is leaking; that could cause me to lose a little sleep, but not likely. If I were to worry about something larger than the problem of my toilet, it would be that someone might assassinate Rossi. Other than that, I have no worries.

        What is your take on the climate? I think that the entire thing is power of suggestion. If I stand in front of my house and imagine that the clouds are moving east, behold, they seem to be moving east. And then, as an experiment, if I imagine that they are moving west, behold, they seem to be moving west. These kinds of ultra-huge matters like climate and history are strongly influenced by what we believe.

        • Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt

          https://twitter.com/corruptbritain/status/526738400598966272

          • bachcole

            Nice. Thank you for that.

            My only explanation for why so many people, not the leaders and those making money off of climate change, believe it is psychological. I can’t believe that all of those people are in a conscious conspiracy to be wrong. There is power of suggestion and a desire to project subconscious anxiety onto objective events; there is also the kum ba ya motivation.

          • This is explained by Groupthink theory as Modeled by Benabou
            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

            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.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            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.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            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.

          • bachcole

            What you call “absolute nonsense rationalization” is merely me trying
            to explain to you why you see things your way and I see things my way. And the general principles apply to the hot vs. cold fusion debate.

            Really, Bernie777, I can’t believe that you said what you said. 99.99% plus of the world is wrong and you are right, about cold fusion. So why do you believe in cold fusion? Afterall, your reason for believing in AGW and getting so worked up about it is that a mere 90% plus of the world believes in AGW. What are you doing believing in cold fusion?

            You seem to like facts. I remember little facts like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and other recent climate extremes that simply blow AGW off the table for consideration. What do you say to those facts? Or are you going to change your mind about these facts which were perfectly good facts until AGW started generating so much money for so few?

            Yes, the globe was warming from about 1970 to 1997. Now it seems to be steady.

            And, in truth, only a small minority, a very small minority, of human beings believe in AGW. Probably a large minority of educated people believe in AGW. Given that your side can only come up with around 10,000 signatures pro AGW and I can come up with 31,000+ signatures anti-AGW among scientists, I suspect that your 90+% is also bogus.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            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.

  • 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. “

  • 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

    https://twitter.com/corruptbritain/status/526738400598966272

  • This is explained by Groupthink theory as Modeled by Benabou
    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

    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.

  • 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.

  • Ivy Matt

    “The Google engineers neglected to touch upon nuclear’s radioactive issues…”

    They barely even mentioned nuclear power. Fusion got one mention and fission was relegated to a sidebar. However, the purpose of their article was not so much to introduce the reader to specific disruptive energy technologies as to make the argument that it’s not enough to simply develop conventional energy technologies. Presumably most people here agree with that sentiment.

    That said, they did address the issue of fusion’s radioactivity here:

    “A disruptive fusion technology…might…produce high-energy charged particles”

    The concern regarding radioactivity is due to the high-energy neutrons which carry away most of the energy liberated in the deuterium-tritium reaction. Neutrons are neutral particles with no net charge. The fact that they mention the possibility of capturing energy from *charged* particle means they’re probably thinking of other fusion reactions, such as D-3He, 3He-3He, or p-11B. Such reactions probably aren’t possible in an economically-sized conventional tokamak, but there’s more than one way to skin a cat where fusion is concerned.

    Of course, demonstrating net gain from such a fusion reaction is the challenge, but once that is achieved, direct conversion of fusion energy to electricity is not so very far-fetched:

    http://www.aero.umd.edu/html/sedwick/presentations/S8P1_Hiromasa_Takeno_Presentation2.pdf

  • 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.

  • Nelson Alencastro

    The largest impact an individual can promote now to fix climate and biodiversity extinction is to stop eat meat. This attitude is easy and far superior than any disruptive technology.