LENR Could Allow for Accomplishment of Obama Climate Goal

Today President Barack Obama is to announce a clean power plan with the goal of cutting US greenhouse gas emissions from power stations by 32% by 2030 in comparison to 2005 levels.

It appears that this is going to become a major issue in US politics and business, and already representatives from the coal industry are vowing to fight the president’s move, since coal power plants would be the most likely targets of these new goals. Coal power plants produced 39 per cent of electricity in the United States in 2014. Natural gas plants are also likely to face pressure, since they produce significant levels of carbon (although less than coal plants).

Assuming overall US consumption of energy will not drop by a third in 15 years, where is the clean energy expected to come from? The conventional wisdom would say that wind and solar will have to pick up part of the slack — maybe new nuclear plants too. Carbon capture and storage at fossil fuel plants have been proposed by some as a clean way to stick with the traditional fuels.

However, what very few people are considering is that Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat is a likely candidate for a technology that could help achieve rapid and significant carbon reduction in a short period of time, while making possible the continued production of energy levels needed to maintain a modern civilization.

From all I have been able to learn, Rossi’s Hot Cat appears to be a technology ideally suited for electricity generation on large scales. Admittedly, at this point we don’t have a Hot Cat power plant, even in prototype form, but it seems that the essential technological know-how is in place to make commercial plants possible. Yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Rossi estimated that he forsees E-Cat applications in the heating and power production field in the next five years.

If Andrea Rossi is able to commercialize his E-Cat, what about other LENR technology? Once it is established that the E-Cat is commercially viable, I anticipate that many other researchers will move seriously into the field to find ways to harness the LENR phenomenon. Rossi and the E-Cat seem to be the leaders at the moment, but I think competition will come from many sources and improvements over the E-Cat could likely emerge.

President Obama is looking for a transformation of the energy landscape, and I think we are at a time where transformation is possible — but with a technology that could far exceed what most conventional thinking is expecting at the moment. I do expect that when the benefits of LENR become well established, it will become widely seen as a leading candidate for moving clean energy forward.

  • http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/

    Maybe carbon dioxide, which we are made of, is not so evil after all. The world is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day, or maybe even billions a day, on phony “renewable” energy schemes that drive up the cost of food and energy while increasing unemployment and budget deficits. This behavior has not reduced atmospheric CO2 levels and has only made biofuel, wind, and solar companies rich. Such a trillion dollar industry has clout in Washington and killing it off won’t be easy.

  • bfast

    What an understatement! Once the e-cat is out the door, a revolution will start. The climate change scare will add fuel to the fire. This technology will take 10 years to make a serious dent, but will take over completely in about 20 years.

    Bachole, “Complete cessation of pollution will be wonderful.” As the article understates, you overstate. ‘Twil by no means mean the end of polution. There are many ways to pollute beside burning fossil fuels. The other ways of polluting stand a good chance of increasing considerably when this technology takes over. Please understand that oil will become extremely cheap — therefore all forms of plastic will become much cheaper.

    Unfortunately, though the e-cat will bring on a revolution the size of the industrial revolution, it will be a mixed revolution — some things will be better, others will be worse.

    • Steven Irizarry

      the economic impact of lenr is literally the best thing to happen to obama…too bad now is too late for him to take credit for the revolution.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer
  • malkom700

    Obama and his people obviously are aware of the importance of LENR and the state of development is therefore surprising that kind of weak targets. Otherwise, many other states have incomprehensibly behaving example when starting to build nuclear power plants or build gas pipelines.

  • Roland

    Here’s a simple graphic representation of the average global temperature data over the previous 135 years for folks that can’t be bothered to read the source documentation, or even the synopsis’s, from a long list of climate studies:


    It is pertinent to this discussion that the geological record demonstrates that the average temperature rise in the last 135 years usually occurs over a million year period. The rate of change in the natural cycle allows time for ecological adaption, the rate of change we are inducing threatens to overwhelm the ability of millions of species to adapt quickly enough to survive.

    During previous periods of very rapid average temperature change, in either direction, there have been extinctions that have killed off over 90% of the prevailing life forms and rendered millions of species extinct, we appear to be poised on the brink of the 6th such event since life emerged.

    Perhaps the climate cranks could remember that Bush 41 commissioned the EPA to study this issue near the end of his term and that the EPA issued their report a decade later during the Bush 43 era. The EPA unambiguously concluded that human activity is driving an unprecedentedly rapid rise in the average global temperature and that the consequences of inaction are a direct threat to wellbeing of most of the American populace.

    The EPA action recommendation was telling; in the face of inaction, which they anticipated, much of the American population will be forced out of currently inhabited areas and entire cities will be abandoned as uninhabitable for various reasons by 2100.

    • Omega Z

      “data over the previous 135 years”

      At a time when such readings at best were sporadic in nature & locations which signifies nothing in reality. Also of a nano second on a geologic time scale. Point being we don’t have a reliable data set or anything close. We could in fact be on the Virge of an Ice Age. We can only be confident that 15000 years ago, the world went into a warming trend with no idea of what the actual fluctuations were. No one was keeping records. That leaves those with agendas to twist the data anyway they like. Dispute it & be ostracized.

      They promote contradictions & lies all the time passing off computer model data as fact when it doesn’t fit reality. One portion of the ocean can’t rise 6 feet when the rest doesn’t. Water will find it’s own level unless there’s a problem with gravity. Oceans are absorbing CO2 & warming at the same time. Warming oceans would expel CO2, not absorb it. Anything above average temps(Even a couple degrees) is global warming & anything below average has nothing to do with it. You can’t have it both ways. And did they flunk a few classes. Average is average. Record high’s & low’s also mean nothing in the size of the data set.

      Regardless, It’s going to take 50 plus years to transition to a different energy source. Unless they intend to push the world back to the stone age. That probably wouldn’t be pretty. I can see many protracted wars in that scenario & Arab spring likely becoming a world spring.

      Just be sure and move off that pristine beach front property. It’s of limited quantity & many new resorts are waiting to be built as are Mansions for the rich. Less desirable coastal properties are OK for the common people.
      In the U.S., Coastal beaches are public, but the wealthy are buying up property & putting up walls to keep the public out. They don’t want you messing with their view…

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Nonsense. Of the last 250 warming cooling cycles, the current cycle is NOT greater in terms of warming rate, nor greater in the amount
      of warming. The graph you quotes ONLY shows a TINY amount – the last 135 years – hardly any kind of record (and hardly any kind of global record). And worse is even the time of day you decide to log the temperature will change the outcome.

      And in fact if you remove badly seated weather stations and those affect by urban sprawl – you see much less warming. Worse is the very TINY amount of data in that graph has been massaged and changed several times – all such changes to the data have caused warming without explain or justification of modifying that data.

      > It is pertinent to this discussion that the
      geological record demonstrates that the average temperature rise in the last 135 years usually occurs over a million year period.

      Nonsense – you have to quote that paper. The current RATE
      and current amount of warming is not different than previous warming cycles. And those cycles occurred without our industrial CO2.

      Of course if you air brush out the medieval warming period
      (like the hockey stick graph did), then of course today seems warm. In the MWP we saw temperatures like we have now if not even higher. In fact recent studies in Iceland find farms today that are NOT viable, but were during the MWP – this study suggests temperatures were higher than today by as much as 2-3 degrees are required for these farms to have been productive.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Omega Z

        Yes, When you control the Data collection you control the truth as you prefer to portray it. A couple years ago they added 1000 new CO2 sensors. Located on Cell Towers. Where people live. In concentrated areas.
        Perhaps we need another 1000 thermometers. Placed in the Deserts. No way that would skew the data. LOL…

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Albert D. Kallal

    So you mean the source of funding makes the messenger wrong?
    So given that governments are pushing for more taxes, and the scientists you quote are receiving government funds, then based on your logic they are shrills for the government then, right?

    The fact that someone was paid by “big coal” or “big tobacco” to do some science does not make their claims wrong. However since YOU ARE THE ONE who brought out this concept of the source of funding means the science they produce cannot be trusted, then why trust any scientist receiving money from “big government”?

    And just to make sure we are on the same page, I will quote that “big government” and RIGHT FROM THE HORSES mouth that government panel on climate change (the IPCC) we have this stunning WHOPPER:

    by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by
    climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy
    separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
    policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    So given your logic, and YOUR claims that scientists change their mind based on the source of funding and therefore what they claim is NOT based on science but their political views and SOURCE OF funding, then we MUST apply your same rules and logic to those receiving money from “big government”. And the above IPCC quote really does nail this down, don’t it!!

    The SIMPLE fact is you cannot even show a basic math correlation
    between our output of CO2 and temperature trends.

    Worse yet, in the last 18 years we not had ANY global warming,
    but in the SAME time frame have output about 2/3 of our TOTAL industrial CO2 (you read that correct!). (so about the same as the previous 70 years!!!). So why no global warming, and why cannot you
    not show a math correlation between our output of co2 and temperatures? In place of this, you are thus making FAITH based claims, and applies to some “higher” authority on this matter. If you read the climate-gate emails you will WELL NOTE the scientists in private emails talked about lack of warming, but not in public – why is this? In fact you better link to the government reports that says we had no global warming – and a report for EACH YEAR clearly stating we had no global warming
    (so I want 18 years of such statements and claims! Or you BETTER come up with a explain as to why such statements ARE NEVER MADE IN PUBLIC!).

    As for the 97% consensus? (what a stupid way to do science!).
    A few minutes with Google will show that that claim is false. In fact over 64% of the papers quoted had NO claim to man’s co2 driving current temperatures one way or the other – but the makers of this claim simply choose to categorize papers based on political views! And other papers don’t make ANY claim that our CO2 output is an issue or problem! ONCE AGAIN I thus AGREE with your claim that scientists change their views based on their source of funding – so VERY kind and well of you to make this claim in public! – Well done on your part!

    And if you think there has been global warming in the
    last 18 years, then take the data yourself here and give it a try:


    And if you disagree with anything in the above you MUST QUOTE the data and statement that you found wrong – no more faith based appeals
    to some supposed higher authority that you ask us to submit to!
    And are those people you ask us to submit to on acts of faith wearing purple smocks, or white ones – would seem not much difference based on you so willing to make an act of faith and submit to these authorities.

    Have fun with the above data.

    But hey, I am VERY glad you pointed out that scientists base their views on their funding, be that funding from “big oil”, “big tobacco” or “big government”.

    You basically doing what occurred in Galileo’s time. The consensus
    of the science community was earth was the center of the universe, but ANYONE with a brain and using a telescope could look up and figure out this was not the case – and today anyone with Excel can take the data and run the numbers. In other words stop using IPCC models – they all been wrong for 20+ years and start using real data in place of models they use (the IPCC does not use real observations – just models!! – how silly!!).

    And to save you some grief, the 18+ year time frame starts from NOW, from TODAY not some stupid arbitrary point in the past (only a silly fool would pick some point in the past). So start from today – no gimmick starting point!! And you don’t use a silly simple grade 3 math slope, but do a regression. So have some fun, try the numbers in the link above, and report back on what you found in the numbers – no need to appeal
    to some scientist that as you state changes their mind based on their source of their paycheck.

    And while you at this, please find that government employee
    running down the halls of government stating that we need less government and less government employees since I am NOT suggesting conspiracy here, but most certainly am suggesting self-interest. I suppose you may try to claim that your inability to find such a government employee is some grand conspiracy! I mean does someone tell government employees ALL ROUND the world not to speak out for less government employees – but yet that is what they do!

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada