“Cold Fusion – If This is True, the Oil Becomes Worthless” (Norwegian TU Magazine)

Thanks to those who have shared about an article which was published by the Norwegian magazine TU (Teknisk Ukeblad) titled “Cold Fusion – If this is true, the oil becomes worthless”.

The author, Odd Richard Valmot, looks at the implications of the possibility of commercially available LENR energy, and interviews Nils Holme, engineer in technical physics from the Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH) who was involved in organizing the seminar held in Oslo where various experts talked about recent developments in LENR.

Holmes is quoted as saying “It is time that physicists stop ridiculing LENR. Now we have two experiments that are supervised by respected, unbiased physicists. One of those who participated in the experiment in Italy, is senior lecturer in theoretical physics at KTH Hanno Essén, has even led the Swedish skeptic Association. He is not easy to convince with something that can not be explained, but he accepts it as can be observed. There is little doubt that this works.”

Regarding the implications of LENR to Norway in particular, Holme states, “LENR is potentially devastating to our economy, and we should rather see how Norway can secure a place in this development. This may come quicker than it takes to plan and develop new oil fields.”

So it seems that influential people in Norway are waking up to the reality of LENR — and not ignoring it, as it could affect in great measure the lifeblood of the Norwegian economy. How they could take advantage of LENR, rather than be swept away by it, is a big question, however. I don’t know if there is any way for an oil-based economy to immunize itself against the potentially severe impacts that LENR might have. Norway does have a huge sovereign wealth fund built on oil profits however, and it might be time for them to think about investments they could make with those funds to prepare for the possibility of LENR.

  • mytakeis

    Pardon the paraphrasing, but to paraphrase:

    It seems that influential people in Saudi Arabia are waking up to the reality of LENR — and not
    ignoring it, as it could affect in great measure the lifeblood of the Saudi Arabian economy. How they could take advantage of LENR is a big question, however. Don’t know if there is any way for an oil-based economy to immunize itself against the potentially severe impacts that LENR might have. Saudi Arabia does have a huge sovereign wealth fund built on oil profits however, and it might be time for them to thing about investments they could make with those funds to prepare for the possibility of LENR.

    It’s my opinion that the Saudis are scared of LENR acendency, hence oil price falls to gather as much profit as possible prior to the advent.

    • builditnow

      Some oil will be sold for many years. Saudi Arabia could be one of these oil producers. What else do they have to sell?
      The Saudi’s could have decided to be a supplier of oil no matter how low the price goes.
      One way to achieve that is to keep pumping oil, no matter what the price is, and drive others out of the oil business. Analysis by the likes of Morgan Stanley shows that the Saudi’s can make “some money” with oil selling below $10.

    • Omega Z

      The Saudi’s are developing an economy that will not depend on Oil. They see Oil exports ceasing in about 20 years due to “their” shrinking supply. 20 years may bring them in under the wire. They will survive.

      They appear to be the only M.E. Country working toward this. They are smarter then the rest. They understand Oil isn’t forever. With or without LENR.

      • Agaricus

        I agree (somewhat) about the machismo effect – apelike tendencies masked by political posturing are one of the more unpalatable aspects of human behaviour. However, the chances of the politicians responsible for this particular fiasco exercising much introspection seem remote.

  • Omega Z

    It’s “GOOD” that those paying attention start allowing for the possibility of LENR coming to market. It’s the intelligent thing to do. It will take time to study the repercussions & plan a transition.

    That said, The primary use of oil & the price supporting factor is transportation. It is going to be a long time before LENR has much impact on Oil. It will be a slow drawn out affair that will happen only when additional technologies are developed or advanced.

    E-cat cars. Very problematic. The conversion of heat to electric & the amount of hardware needed just isn’t practical. We need some serious technology advances. It’s a possibility, but quite sometime in the future.

    Electric cars. Also, Very problematic. The battery technology we have is expensive & given the market size, will continue to be so due to the excessive demand for raw materials to fill that market & the constant replacement cycle. Again, Major technological advances are needed. Also a long term process.

    A Hydrogen transportation system isn’t a near term option for similar technology issues. Even if these issues should be resolved, it will take years to ramp up. An additional 20 years to replace the existing transportation. So any impact is going to be gradual.

    Replacing the power grid itself is going to take decades without even worrying about the transportation system. The world only has so many resources to expend at any given time. Presently, the world expends about 5% of GDP to energy replacement & expansion. I don’t look for that to increase by much. It’s simple economics. What do you short in order to increase this. Food production, medical care, pensions.

    And, consider, We are still waiting for the 1st confirmed usability of LENR technology. Another year. And it will take time to expand on that if the results are positive. Another 3 years is likely before we see a working pilot plant producing electricity.

    So, barring another dark horse technology breakthrough, I question whether we can transition before Oil becomes to short in supply or to expensive for economic activities. I’m not concerned that it will be crushed. It’s not likely to happen.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      your comments about electric cars and electric car batteries are very wrong. the cost of traction batteries is dropping very fast. their durability and performance is already good and improving quickly. electric drive trains are far superior to ICEs in reliability, performance and efficiency. in total cost of ownership evs are already cheaper than ICEs.

      in transportation (including heavy duty vehicles) evs will begin to dominate relatively soon. this is already well known by people working in this space. by 2020 everyone will be acutely aware of this. one last thing: hydrogen is a total joke.

      • bachcole

        EESFF, I’ve warned you about what happens when you bottle things up and don’t tell us what you really think: “hydrogen is a total joke.”


        I tried to read about “traction” batteries, but I didn’t get anything about the technology/physics/chemistry. Could you enlighten us?

      • Agaricus

        Once certain levels of efficiency are passed in traction batteries, the power density itself becomes a potential problem (risk of explosion from overheating or accidents). The same would apply to capacitance based storage systems as the limits of insulating materials are reached.

        Hydrogen fuel cells fed from exchangeable hydride cylinders might be a viable technology for powering vehicles, but only if CO2-fearing politicians drive it with heavy subsidies and/or zero fuel taxes. Even with advances in fuel cell technology, the efficiency of the overall system would be abysmal, but if very cheap electrical power from cold fusion becomes a reality it might still be a runner.

      • Omega Z

        Hydrogen is king in a conventional sense. ICE
        But it is problematic(4) for personal transportation.
        1) ICE, would need re-engineered. Hydrogen burns very hot. Ceramic cylinders have been suggested along with enlarged coolant system.
        2) Economical Extraction: Tho I think this can be accomplished in time.
        3) What makes it appealing makes it terrifying. High energy density. Safe transport is a big issue. Tho, your fuel tank could be reduced by 75%. 1 gallon of hydrogen replaces 4 gallons of gasoline.
        4) To many Idiots in the world that would misuse cheap plentiful hydrogen in nasty ways.
        Ev’s, Stop. Stop. I’ve been sold on electric vehicles since the 70’s.
        Few people realize that the freight train they wait on at a crossing is driven by electric motors. There’s a reason for that. However, people only notice the drone of those Diesels(driving generators). But if one listen closely, you can hear the hum of the electric motors.

        The issue is battery technology. You’re right that their improving, but they are still at a primitive stage & will never have the density of Fossil fuels. However, in time they will be good enough. The bigger problem is they all tend to use raw materials that are of a limited supply. Hows Lithium, the new oil sound.

        Musk is investing 5.5 Billion plus 1.5 billion in subsidies to build his Mega plant that may be in production 3 years from start. 1) to insure a battery supply and 2) to hopefully bring the price down by 1/3rd(Not a given). That’s $11K for the Tesla’s & about $9K for the smaller shorter range cars. Note that the Mega plant may begin operation in 2017, but it wont be fully complete until 2025.

        This varies by country, but given the average annual mileage of U.S. vehicles, these batteries will need replaced about every 7.5 years according to the specs on these batteries. Still it is true that cradle to grave(At least for now), they will be cheaper then ICE. However, people need to be able to afford the up front cost.

        They were aiming for 500K Ev sales in 2014. Don’t know yet if they made it. They only need to increase annual battery & Ev car production by another 74.5 Million plus the capacity to replace those batteries continually.(1 to 1.2 Billion cars) & in 20 years, they will be able to replace all the ICE fleet. What’s that do for Lithium prices.

        Note that Electrical power production will also need to be expanded by about 50% beyond the present level to charge those batteries & no matter what technology we eventually use, It will take decades. It’s a huge task.
        We need another dark horse breakthrough.

        • EEStorFanFibb

          “We need another dark horse breakthrough”

          i’m not sure we need it but i’ve sure been pining for it for a long time.

          note my handle. :p

        • EEStorFanFibb

          BTW battery longevity today is probably closer to 12 years than 7 and lithium sourcing/cost is not really a big deal and will never end up being prohibitively expensive or otherwise problematic imo.

          • Omega Z

            Tesla batteries are rated 10 years 100K miles.
            Like the mpg ratings of cars, they have caveats, If used accordingly.

            Most of us have seen the hype of 80% charge in 20 minutes or whatever. Several additional hours for a full charge.
            In the caveats they tell you charging beyond 80% of capacity may reduce life cycle. So it’s not necessarily 10/100.

            Note I used 7.5 years as a possible average. This is based on the average miles driven only in the U.S. This will vary both by national averages of various countries & the person. In the U.S., numbers range by region between 12K & 15K miles, so 7.5 is just slightly off. Nothing of consequence.

            Real life-
            My Girl friend drives 18K miles a year to/from work plus non work miles average probably 22K a year. 4.5 years battery life.
            My neighbor drives 25K+ to/from work & easily 30K a year overall. 3.3 years battery life.
            I on the other-hand am good. 3k to 5k a year. My car will fall apart before the battery quits.

            As to Lithium, it is already stressed. In the U.S. it takes on average of 15 years to open a new mine. Take note of where Musk’s Mega battery plant is located. He didn’t pick that location by happenstance. They are reopening a mine close by that was of a different nature but also has a large deposit of Lithium. Enough to cover a large portion of U.S. needs for a few decades. Caveat- At present rate of use.

            About 2 years ago, Japan found a large reserve of Lithium. It’s problematic on several fronts. It’s on the Seafloor off Hawaii. We haven’t yet developed the technology to extract it(Maybe 20 years). Important Question. Who’s it belong to.

            If determined to belong to the U.S., It’s not an Issue. International waters is a problem. All nations want a percentage. How do you pay out 300% of 100%. Obviously, they will work out a 10% off the top arrangement given to the UN & divided by some formula among the Nations. It wont be done fairly as in equal. Likely the poor nations get the lions share. Yet it could take decades for the Idiots to come to this conclusion before extraction starts.

            What am I talking about. These issues have already been argued about since the 60’s & no consensus yet.

            As to your handle. Yes, Super Capacitors I believe.
            I support you & it. I don’t believe in Impossible. I believe in- We just haven’t figured it out yet. Anything is possible.

  • Hi all

    With regard to vehicle power system, the work of Mitchell Swartz on the Nanor and its various iterations is of far more importance. Having a Nanor pile would allow a very small engine energy supply.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Omega Z

      Though the E-cat doesn’t tend to be suited for cars, Rossi’s Hot cat could easily be adapted to maritime shipping & with proper design could provide all it’s electrical needs. The required scale/size would require less space then current propulsion plants & the fuel required.

      It could also be supplemented with a conventional diesel system for start up if problems developed. Shipping uses as much fuel as 300K passenger cars. This could be followed up by freight trains.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Let’s hope Ukraine/Russia standoff doesn’t became war with NATO… It would be highly ironic: the salvation of the world at the door, and we destroy everything because of a surge in belligerent hormones.

    • Tim

      I doubt either Russia or NATO have the cojones to wage nuclear war over Ukraine. However, the unrest there could hamper the efforts to re-seal Chernobyl that a French company is conducting. I just hope both sides are wise enough to back off and let them finish securing that disaster area, or we may have an unintended nuclear catastrophe on our hands.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Testosterone: nobody backs off, increasing show and then acts of force, in escalation and total ignorance of the value of life.
        Then comes war, the perception and assertion of power, the increase of governments’ expenditure in arms and “defence”. The destruction and death are borne by civilians, children, women, elderly people, and those who just want to leave in peace.
        “Cojones” can also mean “imbeciles” (that’s a colloquial meaning in Spanish).

        Chernobyl is constantly still emitting radiation http://www.today.com/id/42760861/ns/today-today_news/t/years-chernobyl-still-leaking-radiation/

        • Agaricus

          This is mostly to do with attempting to deny the Russians the seaports they will acquire along with with the ethnic Rissian regions. Germany and France have already seen that the situation is getting out of control and are actively trying to damp things down. Only the US and UK governments seem intent on stoking the fire. If, as seems to be the developing case, the bulk of the EU backs off, the crisis will hopefully be settled by establishment of new agreed borders, probably over Poroshenko’s head.

  • EEStorFanFibb

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.