Who Could be Against LENR?

As I think about what the emergence of LENR as a major source of energy could mean to the world, I struggle to think of good reasons to oppose it. It seems to me that it is something that people from all walks of life and with different political philosophies would have good reason to get behind the cause of LENR.  Here are some of the major groups that I have considered, and my thoughts on how they might respond to the new technology.


Those who advocate social systems where social programs and services are provided for from the taxation of the wealthier in society should be happy to have cheap energy to provide for the needs of society. There are many nations where fuel subsidies make up a large portion of public expenditures, and one would expect a much cheaper fuel source to be embraced. Countries with economic systems planned and funded by government would also likely find cheap energy from LENR attractive as it would cut their huge energy budgets.


One of the great attractions of LENR is that it promises to allow for localized, decentralized energy production. For those who seek to live with as little government interference as possible LENR would be an attractive proposition, as it could allow for self-determination and self-sufficiency on a level that is not possible today. Those who advocate for lower taxation could make a case that costs of running government would be significantly reduced as energy costs are reduced.


Business owners should be some of the first constituents to embrace LENR. Anything that will cut overhead costs is great news for for business. In many industries energy makes up a high percentage of overall costs, and anything that could give businesses the ability to cut costs and thus be more competitive will surely be adopted.


The environmental argument has been tremendously influential in shaping todays energy policies in many nations. The push to reduce greenhouse emissions has spurred on investment and development of alternative energy technologies, with many governments subsidizing renewable energy projects. Unfortunately alternatives like wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal power are not able to put much of a dent in the overall production of greenhouse gases as economic development increases energy use from fossil fuels. With LENR (E-Cat) able to produce energy at least one order of magnitude higher than any known chemical energy source, and without it producing emissions or radiation, one would expect LENR to be the energy source of environmentalists’ dreams. The claims of almost zero consumption of nickel in Ni-h reactors must be great news to those who are concerned about the depletion of the earth’s natural resources.


Those who seek to provide humanitarian and philanthropic aid to suffering people would surely wish to help provide a clean and cheap source of energy to people in need.


Cheap energy is something that almost all consumers would welcome. Increasing energy costs are putting strains on households everywhere. Energy poverty is a very real problem for billions around the world who struggle to be able to find and afford the basic energy resources for heating, cooking, lighting and electricity. Cheap power from LENR could literally transform lives around the globe. Off-grid living is something that is very attractive to many, regardless of political philosophy. Anyone who has lived through extended loss of power would be in favor of power supplies that are much less prone to disruption by natural or man-made disasters.

Who Could Oppose LENR Adoption?

Andrea Rossi said recently in response to a question about his major fear concerning the future of his invention, “We will be subject to a massive attempt of discredit, from many differentiated sources, but I think that we can win just installing operating plants. Our work will beat any chatter.”

With all the advantages cheap and clean energy brings, who could be against it? From a rational standpoint adoption of LENR would seem to be a slam dunk — but that is only if one does not take into account human nature — peole do not always behave rationally. There are plenty of people in government, business and society in general who benefit from the current energy situation. Anyone whose livelihood, status and power is bound up with the current energy status quo might resist its adoption. How easy it would be to successfully stand in the way of such a revolutionary technology remains to be seen.

Have I missed anything important in this analysis?