LENR and the Climate Debate

Since climate change is front and center in the news, after President Trump announced that the United States’ withdrawl from the Paris Climate Accord, I thought it might be appropriate to broach the topic here. Andrea Rossi has made a lengthy comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics on the topic that I thought would make a good starting point. could

I don’t consider Rossi an expert on climate science, but I do consider him an expert in developing an energy technology which I believe could have a profound impact on the debate around energy and the environment.

I realize this is a topic that can often lead to heated debate, I hope that commenters here will be respectful of one another, even if they might disagree with another’s position, and remember the commenting guidelines of ECW.

Here is Rossi’s comment on the JONP today:

Andrea Rossi
June 2, 2017 at 6:49 AM
Kevin:
There is a lot of hypocrisy and superficiality on this issue.
I am sure of the fact that the more we research in new environmentally friendly and renewable energies, the better, but:
1- the solar energy is not economically profitable and is funded exclusively and by the taxpayer
2- the wind energy ( that indirectly is solar ) is not profitable as well as the solar and it too is economically sustainable only if funded by the taxpayer
3- both of them are profitable only in restricted areas, where sun and wind are particularly strong all the year around, not relevant in the global energy market: when you read that “30% of the energy is made by solar” it is a lie that takes advantage of the fact that laymen do not know the difference between power and energy: the solar represents 30% of the installed power, but for the 90% the solar plants and the wind towers produce no energy, therefore the energy actually produced is barely the 10% of the power installed
4- all the jobs created by the alternative energies are funded by the taxpayer, otherwise could not be paid for
5- the phrase ” all the scientific community is sure that the global warming is generated by human activities” is a lie: no serious statistic has been made on this issue and the phrase ” all the more vociferous guys in the scientific community are sure that the global warming is induced by human activities” would be more proper
6- the Earth has had dramatic climate changes along its eons, totally independent from humans: the Sahara desert was a gigantic forest, as big as the Amazonic area and the oil is the product of the decomposition of enormous amounts of organic residue degenerated underground during the “global warming” of a precedent era: in this case, not only it has not been oil to cause the global warming, but, on the contrary, it has been the global warming that has generated the oil…
7- nevertheless, I sustain that R&D in the alternative energies must be done, but without hypocrital opportunism and with serious scientific and economic approach and without the distruction of the patrimony of plants and jobs created by the traditional energies.
When I read that China and India are lecturing the USA about pollution, I take it seriously, but only as an epiphany of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

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