On the downslope of peak oil, cold fusion remains hope for the future

Why is LENR research so important?

Because the world energy outlook portends decreased oil supplies in the near future. In fact, the International Energy Agency has finally publicly accepted the Peak scenario for conventional oil, and now claims it already happened in 2006.

What this means is that the easy oil has been found, and what remains in the ground is more difficult to retrieve, more dangerous to extract, and more expensive to process.

Think of deepwater oil and the BP catastrophe. Think of tar sands and oil shale and the tremendous ecological devastation wrought in its extraction, including the enormous amount of water needed to process this unconventional oil.

Here’s a graph from the annual World Energy Outlook 2010 published recently by the International Energy Agency.
Chris Martenson, of Energybulletin.net has written a summary of the implications of this report that is sobering and well worth reading.

Alternative energies are standing by, ready to replace what we get from oil, you say? Not so fast. There is no amount of renewable energy that will replace the energy density of petroleum, gas, and coal.

This article by Roger Adair How sustainable is renewable energy?, published on www.energybulletin.net tells a personal story of his experience in the wind energy business in Ireland, Scotland, and England.

The amount of deuterium in one gallon of water is equivalent to the energy of 300 gallons of gasoline. (read Department of Energy What is fusion? which describes the hot fusion process.) This is the kind of energy density that will power global mass transportation systems, allow manufacturing of high-technology materials and goods, and send humans to space, and beyond.

This is the kind of clean, atomic power that the new energy movement reveals can lead Earth in an evolution of human society, and as McLuhan said, “program our environment” with care, and in service to all living things.

As access to oil becomes increasingly difficult, the entire infrastructure that petroleum built will fall away, for each technology creates an entire landscape of services and disservices. The world that petro-dollars created will dissolve in direct proportion as the fuel disappears, and this means more than no filling stations for your car.

Your job, your home, your school, your food, your fun, your clothes, your Facebook page – our lives are cradled in a world that is slipping away. We cannot continue to live the way we do, and we don’t want to. But if cold fusion scientists cannot get this technology developed, it’s hard times for planet Earth for years, and possibly decades, to come.

Every effort must be made to get the basic science of low-energy nuclear reactions understood and online. Only then can private investment come in to design and engineer new forms of energy devices with the power to fuel a new type human civilization, where ecological wisdom is fundamental to all processes.

What can you do?

Jan Marwan told us:

Start talking wherever you are, in your family, at work, when you’re in governmental institutions, start talking. The more you talk about this topic, the more you raise it, the more you involve other people, …you know… it spread’s like a virus!

Cold Fusion Now!

Why is cold fusion rejected?

by Edmund Storms

An ordinary person might wonder why cold fusion is not being explored more vigorously as the ideal energy source it promises to be. Why do public figures avoid discussing the idea and why do uninformed writers occasionally use cold fusion as an example of bad science?

Twenty-one years ago when Profs. Fleischmann and Pons (Univ. of Utah) announced the discovery, skeptical attitudes were justified and widespread. The claims were and still are completely at odds with what is known about nuclear reactions. The idea that energy could be produced by fusing two deuterons in what looked like a Mason jar was crazy at the time and still is hard to understand.

The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions But now the situation has greatly changed. Hundreds of people in over 12 countries have been investigating the process with growing success. Thousands of papers have been published and are easily available for study at www.LENR.org and evaluated in the book “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” available from Amazon.com.

Clearly, a new phenomenon has been discovered even though it has not been fully explained nor is easy to produce.

Yet, the attitude toward the subject in the popular press and conventional science has hardly changed. Why has a change not occurred especially in view of the growing need for a non-carbon and a non-uranium based energy source? Indeed, the long running reluctance to accept cold fusion in the face of mounting evidence is unique to modern science, which has delayed accepting many new ideas, but never with as much determination.

The claim started with several strikes against it. First and most important, the claim was not easy to replicate. Most efforts, but not all, failed mainly because many people had a very poor understanding of what was required. They also expected the effect would be large and easy to detect once it was produced. Instead, the effect is difficult to produce even today and the results can be ignored as being caused by imagined prosaic processes.

Frequently, these imagined processes require as much suspension of rational understanding as skeptics claim is being used to support cold fusion its self. In other words, each side in the debate has to make equally improbable claims, but with the claims made for the effect being supported by a growing collection of experimental evidence.

Second, the claim was and is in conflict with what is known about nuclear interaction, causing many high profile scientists to conclude the effect is impossible.

Third, if the effect turned out to be real, it would put the hot fusion program out of business. Billions of dollars have been spent on this effort over 60 years in an attempt to cause a similar kind of reaction to that produced by cold fusion, but with disappointing results. The physics professors at major universities funded by this program did not appreciate the possibility their careers might end because of an idea suggested by a couple of chemists.

Gradually, a myth was formed around cold fusion by the skeptics until it became the popular metaphor for bad science done by deluded scientists. Whenever a writer wanted to show how scientists can be deceived, cold fusion was combined with poly-water and n-rays as an example of how someone can be mislead if they are not careful and not skeptical enough, or not as skeptical as the writer. Once such a myth forms in popular journalism, it is very difficult to change, especially when the myth has a benefit to influential groups.

Modern society is filled with such myths, some of which are harmless but some will have devastating consequences if they are not changed. One such myth is that the earth is not getting warmer and that sea level will not rise as ice continues to melt. Efforts to cut back on the generation of CO2, the main cause of warming, are met with the same emotional rejection as is applied to cold fusion. In this respect, the myth of cold fusion and the myth of non-global warming have a lot in common. Rejection of global warming leads to the destruction of civilization while rejection of cold fusion eliminates a possible solution to this disaster.

Sooner or later scientists in some country will discover how to make cold fusion work on a commercial scale. When this happens, the countries that develop this technology will rapidly become richer and more powerful. The cost of energy for manufacturing will go down and processes that are not yet practical under most conditions, such as obtaining fresh water from the sea, will become widely used.

These benefits will cause a rapid expansion in the power and influence of the countries using this inexpensive energy source. What about the countries that do not know how to make the effect work?

Their scientists will attempt to reverse engineer the power generator, but in this field, such efforts will be difficult without an understanding of how the process works, an understanding that will not be shared by the discovers.

Also, highly developed countries will have difficulty removing their present energy infrastructure and substituting this much simpler source. So, the race is on and the potential winners are not obvious.

Nevertheless, it is obvious the winner will not be a country that ignores and rejects the reality of cold fusion.