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.

  • 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.

  • Obvious

    The world is on the verge of Peak Power, where efficiencies in new devices will offset increased growth in device usage. We might need a small increase in power production, but the days of logarithmic increases in production capability and consumption are over.

  • bachcole

    Complete cessation of pollution will be wonderful. Stopping the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be disappointing for me. I am not saying that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would be good merely to tick liberals off; I actually believe it. And I believe it because science and practice support that belief.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer
      • Koen van Dijk

        I think they asked the wrong question. Climate change is occurring, it has always been occurring and it will always be occurring. The real question is if humans have anything to do with it. So I think the ambiguous nature of the question invalidates the conclusions they are trying to draw here.

        • bachcole

          Right arm!!!

      • bachcole

        And your point? I hope that it is not that consensus science is science.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          “It’s fairly clear from these graphs that religious, Republican American conservatives make up the majority of today’s deniers of climate change. If income, education, and knowledge have little to do with acceptance of climate change, then could it be that this issue has become one of culture, not science, in America? Do conservative Americans deny climate change simply because it conflicts with their identity as a conservative”

          • bachcole

            It stopped being a matter of science when:
            1. We learned about email-gate.
            2. AGW proponents started doing their now famous ad hominen attacks against all those who would dare to disagree with them.
            3. Doing, speaking, and thinking science became less important than believing what someone else said.
            4. Only AGW proponents could get funding.
            5. When AGW proponents enlisted those who practised herd mentality, usually liberals.
            6. When both sides stopped reading and listening to the other side.

          • bachcole

            Seriously, we can see how politicized AGW has become because people like you and me just can’t let it go here in http://www.e-catworld.com, even though we know for a fact that the whole argument is moot because of the rise of the E-cat. We have so much ego and energy and time invested in it that we continue to bash each other over the head about a subject that is meaningless. That is why it is politicized.

            And to answer the question of why do righties tend to say no and lefties tend to say yes: Perhaps because righties tend to be individualistic and lefties tend to be group-oriented.

  • 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.

  • 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

      a third industrial revolution and a unprecedented drop in prices for everything. another effect would be hyperloop technology and the creation of a booming space economy since space-planes would go beyond earth orbit at incredible speeds. a new elite would form whose fortune would come from the new tech enabled by this technology, examples like this. a woman or man who used lenr to get a near monopoly on the auto industry(thanks to near limitless range and efficiency). a owner of a massive space company that creates interplanetary spaceplanes and robotics companies as well as elon musk whose hyperloop technology would reshape travel. nations will be reshaped by new balances of power as well. china would ripe the benefits of cheap labor and limitless energy

  • Warthog

    I wonder where Mr. President Obama thinks he has the authority to do this. Without the consent of Congress and governing law from same, the only entities that the president can directly order to make such changes are the executive branch agencies and the military (and perhaps not the military). I doubt that the upper echelon bureaucrats and agency heads will willingly trade their limousines and black SUVs for Fiats.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Republican Controled Congress would have trouble passing a
      Bill to make sliced bread legal

      • Buck

        Probably because it is a dangerous change; it dis-empowers and dis-enfranchises those who must learn to fend for themselves . . . to make their own way in the world and to learn how to cut their own bread.

        It also protects us from the unscrupulous . . . those who say they will slice the loaf into 20 slices but only make 16, forcing us to eat more than we want.

        It is a dangerous world out there . . . and we’re going to show you the truth by helping you in this sound manner. Change opens the door to these sort of choices which have moral implications . . . good people know that and are happy to protect these revered traditions . . . with anger, fear, and hate if necessary

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Right, you should stop using Google search and go to the library

          • Buck

            Well . . . I own Google stock . . . so Google search is OK.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    It is hard for me to believe President Obama and his administration is
    not following LENR progress very closely. This could be the basis for Dr. Rossi’s strong endorsement of President Obama’s policies. I have been following the markets for more
    than 50 years and have never seen the Central Banks of the World so involved in
    moving almost every market. Some would argue the decrease in oil prices from $100 to $50 has been and is a continuing controlled reduction to make the transition less of a jolt to the economy, so when LENR is introduced and the oil price decreases from $50 to $25 it will be less disruptive
    to the economy.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer
  • 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.

  • clovis ray

    I am so glad, to hear that Dr Rossi has joined the team, I have been saying this about president Obama all along, it nice to know I was not alone in my apparition of this great man, thank you Dr. Rossi, I totally agree with you.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Future presidents must set the example by flying in Air Force Ones with zero carbon footprints (i.e. Hot- Cat powered). Maybe Obama could give a JFK style speech to set that goal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw

  • Dr. Tim Ball – “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk

    This is a long discourse. You can skip to the 20 minute mark and not miss anything important. The introduction/warm-up is too long, but the science and facts he presents are difficult to argue with. Climate Change advocates/enthusiasts/lovers/devotees tend to cover their ears and sing rather than face these proven facts. I suggested Dr. Ball make a shorter edited 30 minute version for Americans with Attention Deficit Disorder (almost all Americans) and he said he would get to it. Dr. Ball is a Canadian with a excellent grasp of the scientific issues and a good sense of humor.
    ___________
    Two cavemen were talking and one said to the other, “Something is wrong. Our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”

  • Anyone can google Tim Ball and have a good laugh at his credentials and his total lack of objectivity. http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

    • GreenWin

      “When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”

      • He’s a proven shill for big oil. That’s VERY pertinent. Simple tropes don’t change that fact. And the fact that he can’t actually refute real climate scientists work is easily shown as well. google is also your friend on that. No point wasting pixels here on that yet again.

        • Omega Z

          CO2 levels began rising 200 years ago.
          Global warming started 15,000 years ago. It merely paused during the maunder minimum & continued after this maunder period ended. This warming will continue regardless what humans do.

          • 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:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

            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.

            Regards,
            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…

        • 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:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/02/el-nio-begins-to-curtail-the-pause/

          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!

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • There is a big difference.

            Governments provide funds to independent bodies that distribute resources to scientists in the form of grants. Nobody receiving those grants is expected by government to “discover” anything in particular that supports a particular political or ideological agenda. It’s an independent and unconstrained effort to discover scientific truth where data is the final arbiter.

            Meanwhile, big oil hires “Merchants of Doubt” (see http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/) to spread FUD and thereby manipulate (at least some) of the (mostly gullible) citizenry into believing total BS so status quo seekers can make money at the expense of future generations and the ecology.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No, but the government does not give you the grant in the
            first place unless you study what they want!

            If you apply for a grant to study the birth rate of chipmunks,
            then you don’t get the funding. But if you add the magic word study the effects of climate change on chipmunk’s birth rates, then you get the funding.

            Look what occurred to Pons & Fleishman on LENR?

            The simply matter was the physics community was receiving BILLIONS in funding for hot fusion. Cold fusion would put an end to that! So
            the VERY SAME community you are asking me to trust is the VERY SAME community that tossed P & f under the bus.

            Why do you think that science community is any different now?
            If they ARE DIFFERENT then why no big push from Obama or NASA for LENR?

            ANYONE WITH A BRAIN can figure out that LENR is the ANSWER!
            Yet Obama and NASA is all of a sudden SUPER STUPID!

            Exactly how stupid do you think people are?

            If they don’t know about this LENR technology, then they REALLY must be stupid! How can anyone interested in global warming and energy not be aware of LENR? how how how?

            Again: ANYONE with a brain can see LENR is the best
            energy choice we have AND IS SO BY A HUGE HUGE HUGE margin!

            And LENR has no greenhouse gases! – A match made in heaven!!!

            All they talk about is taxing CO2 and forcing everyone to reduce their CO2 output (or pay money via carbon credits for your sins to use CO2!).

            So the above VERY much explains the global warming issue.
            If the science community can be SO political on global warming, then the SAME can be said of LENR!!!

            And if scientist doing global warming research are so independent
            then why have they not spoken in public for the last 18 years about the pause in temperatures?

            If scientists doing global warming research are so independent,
            then why don’t they state that no math relationship exists between out output of CO2 and that of warming trends and rates?

            One REALLY BIG reason why I love LENR and am so passionate
            about LENR is it exposes the FAILURE of the science community and shows their DIRTY true colors!

            In the now famous climate gate emails, we saw scientists talking
            about the temperature pause behind the scenes but NEVER in public!
            (the reason is it not political correct to do so!).

            Global warming warming funding is now equal to cancer
            research (yes, cancer!!!). That isn the range of 20+ billion per year!

            NASA is a perfect example, and are one of the LARGEST promoters
            of global warming and ALSO one of the LARGEST recipients of funding for global warming! (why mention LENR that ELIMINATES and destroys the CO2 issue in ONE SECOND FLAT!!!).

            Yup, NASA has BILLIONS of funding at stake if LENR takes
            off – why give money to NASA to research and fix the CO2 problem that is NOT a problem at all!!! Why would anyone expect anything different today then what occurred in P&F’s time?

            The idea that some big funding exists by the oil companies
            for skeptics is laughable and not true at all.

            In fact the LARGEST funding on Capitol Hill for CO2
            limitations is General Electric. They stand to make BILLIONS in selling co2 recapturing equipment to industry.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KASf2gglQfE&index=4&list=PLAB8D69F1FF1797C6

            So the large companies stand to make BILLIONS and will
            ONLY do so if they can sell you the idea of CO2 being a bad thing! (and get regulations in place that restrict CO2 – once restricted, then it can be
            traded).

            The best example on this issue is by the founder of the weather
            channel:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbdnndEChUE&list=PLAB8D69F1FF1797C6&index=5

            And if big oil is funding some big (or little) political
            group, I would like to know what group you are talking about?

            One is VERY naive to think that NASA and such groups are
            not aware of LENR – but the wall of silence is THUNDEROUS! The idea that these groups of people are not political and motived by their ideals is simply not the case.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, like those stupid home schooled Wright brothers. They should have listened to

      Lord Kelvin.

      “..heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
      Lord Kelvin 1895

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Does Freeman Dyson have a PhD?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Leroy Essek

    Down here in Southern California there has been a antitrust lawsuit against the manager of most of the California’s electric grid, alleging that it is using its monopoly power to limit options for one of the largest geothermal energy fields in California. The IID which owns much of the land that has the vast geothermal potential is finding out that the fossil fuel power generation can influence what type of electrical energy is allowed to flow through the grid. There is a technology that can steam distill ocean water 80% cheaper than reverse osmosis. One way is to use geothermal distillation and the other way would be using LENR. What a great future we are living in.

    • Omega Z

      You do know that distilled water still needs to be processed in a water treatment plant to be deemed safe. Right. Some Pathogens can survive. Medical grade distilled water is usually distilled 3 to 6 times & that’s starting with processed water to begin with.

      Distilled water is also not considered healthy. Especially in 3rd world countries. It acts as a bodily flush & will pull vitamins & minerals from the body. Not good for a population that is already deficient in vitamins & minerals. These need to be added back to the water after it is processed. From what I understand, that is not cheap. In western society, this is usually mixed with the regular water supply which has enough vitamins & minerals to offsets this issue.

      Geothermal which qualifies as green energy is also not guaranteed to be cheap. It can in fact be more expensive then Fossil energy. The wells can also mineralize up & need cleaned periodically. They can also go cold. The geothermal formations can shift. There are several in the U.S. that are defunct & shut down.

      Reverse Osmosis & other filtration systems are constantly advancing. It is already cheaper then could be produced by distillation with LENR. Distillation is more then the cost of energy. It is maintenance heavy because of mineralization of the vessel that needs constant tending & usually requires harsh chemicals to rectify along with lots of labor.

      In the not to distant future, Filtration/Reverse Osmosis will be a passive process that will be very cheap & selective in what it removes from the water. Nothing need be added back. The water will flow through to an ultraviolet treatment & be fully potable water. The only energy needed is for low pressure circulating pumps from the source & the ultraviolet lights.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Actually, some distillation systems can take near any kind of water and turn it into good quality drinking water. And they can do it for equal or less cost than membrane (reverse osmosis) systems.

        Better yet, is they don’t have membranes that wear out.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingshot_(water_vapor_distillation_system)

        Dean Kamen announced several goals for and characteristics of
        the machine:

        * Five years of operation without overhaul or maintenance

        * Use less than a kilowatt of power (lower than the power
        consumption of a hair dryer)

        * generate 1000 liters of pure water/day, enough for 100
        people for hygiene and cooking

        * meets the U.S. pharmacopoeic standard for water for
        injections

        * requires no pre-treatment, pipelines, engineers,
        consumables (osmosis membranes, charcoal, etc.), or installation permits

        While Israel has gone forward with osmosis, it looks like distillation systems that re-capture (re-cycle) the heat required for boiling of water have become competitive with osmosis. There are now some large scale plants running on this process today.

        And wonders of wonders, the above machine from Dean Kamen runs on a sterling engine!! – something ideal to be powered by LENR in which you don’t have to convert the heat into electricity first – you run the sterling engine that directly drives a pump that places water under a vacuum which in term means you are boiling water at room temperatures.

        Once again, a sterling engine matched up with LENR turns out to be a near miracle device – and once again this points to sterling engines being a match made in heaven for LENR.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada
        [email protected]

        • Omega Z

          There are new membranes near to market that require no pumps. Their passive, long life and self cleaning. Even the Saudi’s who are Oil & Gas flush intend to use filtration in future desal plants.

          Some added advantages of filtration systems is they can selective remove elements many of which have market value. Vitamins, minerals, metals, gold/silver etc…

          Current desal plants kill & destroy billions of tons of sea life that can be mitigated with a passive system & not create dead zones in the ocean.

          Dean Kamen’s machine- less then 1Kw per 1000 liters a day.
          How about 1 Billion$ San Diego’s Desalination plant 50 million gallons a day. It’s suppose to start trial operation in a September & is considered the most efficient in the world. However it still uses a lot of electricity. It still utilizes the pressurized membrane. The passive membrane when ready is intended to use little or no energy other then circulation pumps which any system of size will need. A bucket at a time wont suffice.

          This plant will supply about 10% of their daily water needs at .003 cents energy per gallon. Of course the real cost of water for a city needs to include all costs including the plant, distribution pipes, sewer water return etc… Most everyone overlooks this.

          • Mary Essel

            There has been a lawsuit filed against the Carlsbad Desal plant regarding the undisclosed amount of energy being consumed to power the plant. The Carlsbad R.O. plant may be consuming more energy than allowable under the anti pollution laws in California. Salt Of the Earth Energy LLC in Texas uses only half the energy of conventional R.O. There is no waste brine to dispose of because they convert the waste brine into highly profitable industrial chemicals. Yes the waste brine being dumped into the ocean can damage the oceans ecosystem. The Surf Rider Assoc. is very upset about the waste brine being dumped into the ocean. Can this new technology regarding reverse osmosis convert all of the ocean water into potable water? I understand that only 50% of the ocean water is converted into fresh water using standard R.O. This is why the Salton Sea area would be perfect for low cost desalination using the new filter systems you mention. I like the idea to filter out the precious minerals and metals.

      • Mary Essel

        The largest lake in California called the Salton Sea has the biggest geothermal potential in USA. Two major earthquake faults run underneath the lake. Many geothermal plants that exist today only have to drill down to 1,200 feet to obtain 350F to 650F geothermal brine. Inside the geothermal brine there is billions of dollars of lithium and other precious minerals. Using low grade steam we can desal ocean water 80% cheaper than reverse osmosis. We do not plan on drinking the distilled water but use it for agriculture and restore the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is 1.5 times saltier than the ocean. The San Diego/Carlsbad reverse osmosis plant that is brand new cost one billion dollars and will be selling water at $2,400 an acre foot to San Diego. Here in Los Angeles as a retail customer we pay around $650 an acre foot. What many are working to accomplish is to restore the Salton Sea with ocean water from the Gulf of California/Sea Of Cortez. Since the Salton Sea is several hundred feet below sea level using two pipes 30 inches in diameter and existing canals we could restore the Salton Sea. Using geothermal distillation with a low cost plant compared to geothermal power generation we can generate the fresh water needed. In some cases distilled water for human consumption can help remove excess sugars from people who have diabetes. In other cases I have read it can leach out toxins from the body as well as the adverse side you mention. Great point about medical grade distilled water. Yes there is new reverse osmosis technology that is being invented that will help improve efficiency. I like a company called Salt of the Earth Energy LLC in Texas. They have a way of converting all of the waste brine left into highly profitable industrial chemicals left over from their new desal technology.

  • 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:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

    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.

      Regards,
      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
  • 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:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/02/el-nio-begins-to-curtail-the-pause/

    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!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada