Political support would have been crucial two decades ago in developing the basic science of cold fusion energy by procuring funding for a coordinated plan of research.
In Peaking of World Oil Production: Impact, Mitigation, & Risk Management, Robert Hirsch and others for the Department of Energy determined that twenty years was the smallest time at which mitigation for the effects of peak oil would allow for a smoother transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy. Less than that, and the gap between the end of easy access to fossil-fuels and a new energy technology would guarantee alot of pain.
Well Peak Oil is here, and our society has collectively decided to ignore the reality of Hubbert’s Curve. As a new technology is being born in the workshops of independent scientists, what can political support do?
Legislators will provide the means for new energy companies to operate easily, and deliver revolutionary new energy products to an eager public as quickly as is technically and safely possible, or, they can make it difficult for these companies to operate and delay product distributions through excessive regulation.
Who in politics is supportive of cold fusion?
In Italy, where the first commercial cold fusion technology was demonstrated just last year, there is also a long history of parliamentary support for cold fusion. In 1989, after Drs. Fleischmann and Pons‘ announcement, “Dr. Francesco Scaramuzzi, a mathematician and physicist at the National Agency for Nuclear and Alternative Energy said he and a team of eight other scientists had forced deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, in the form of gas to fuse at extremely low to room temperatures”, confirming low-energy nuclear reactions LENR. [read Italian Researchers Report Achieving Nuclear Fusion NY Times 1989/04/19]
“They were accompanied by a large number of colleagues and two cabinet ministers” when they made their announcement at the Nuclear Agency’s headquarters in Rome.”, the report quoted. Since then, ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment has continued research, collaborating with labs around the world.
But right after the initial flurry of activity in March 1989, many politicians all over the world spoke about this new form of energy, only to be muzzled in the ensuing months. For two decades, political support lay dormant, until Andrea Rossi demonstrated his prototype Energy Catalyzer in at the University of Bologna in January 2011, igniting public interest and a renewed, though timid, political class.
More recently in Italy, Parliamentarian Domenico Scilipoti addressed a letter to Italian ministers asking “WHETHER The prime minister and the other ministries to whom my questioning is directed do not intend to adopt suitable measures, even laws, aiming at an effective and quick opening towards these researches” according to a translation on lenrforum.eu. [original][gootrans] [lenrforum.eu]
Why are Italians so keen on the Energy Catalyzer?
“If verified, [this] could quickly resolve all issues relating to the production of electricity at low cost without damage to the environment, allowing the country to become an energy exporter of electricity at very low cost, and with the further possible advantage in developing the engineering unit patented by engineer Rossi or other scientists, to free Italy from dependence on supplies of oil, coal and other energy purchases of electricity, with huge environmental and budget benefits.” –Domenico Scilipoti, translation
Greece is the home of Defkalion Green Technologies, licensors of the Hyperion steam generator, a product which will compete with the Ecat. The technology itself is owned by Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies based in Cyprus.
Last year Defkalion Board member and University of Bologna, Italia Professor Christos Stremmenos spoke of “… mediation with the Greek government to make an industrial plant possible”. The result was Defkalion Green Technologies.
Then Prime Minister George Papandreou was himself a supporter of cold fusion technology. Since resigning last year after turmoil over proposed extreme government budget cuts, officials there are still behind the technology, and this week’s elections will most likely not change that sponsorship.
Stremmenos was quoted as saying, “Even the opposition has now asked to be informed on this issue. Therefore in Greece this matter is treated without prejudice, no one is uncommitted.” [read]
The government of Japan had formal commitment to cold fusion research in the nineties. In 1993, a New Hydrogen Energy Laboratory had been set up in Japan with $25 million from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry MITI, to be distributed over 5-years. That was accomplished, but the lab closed after that first five years.
The final report on the project summarized the reason. “No apparent excess heat was observed over instrumentation limits after about 500 of electrolysis experiments by some kinds of well-developed cells”. The conclusion was that New Hydrogen Energy was not ready to be commercialized and still within the realm of scientific research. But no other ministry picked up the check.
Ironically, it is just such research that needs federal support. Private industry looking for a return on investment eschews basic scientific research, and will only step in when a commercial product is imminent. Had cold fusion benefited from federal funding over the past two decades, labs could have passed to private enterprise a fully-developed science that might be producing usable commercial technologies based on clean, portable, and safe energy right now.
There is a long list of official government sponsorship by other countries around the world. But here in the US, the striking emotional backlash that has left cold fusion, and a whole host of new energy technologies, out of the energy portfolio continues institutionally as it has for more than two decades.
Who in the parochial US government is willing to speak out for cold fusion?
Just about zero.
But there are some candidates beginning to bring this issue out in the open again.
Randy Hekman is a candidate for US Senate from Michigan, looking to unseat heavily-funded Debbie Stabenow. There are many differences between the two candidates, the biggest difference being Randy Hekman supports LENR low-energy nuclear reaction research. [visit]
He was a member of the 2004 team including Michael McKubre, Peter Hagelstein, David J. Nagel, and Talbot Chubb that prepared a report in 2004 for the Department of Energy Review. Ultimately, the panel claimed that clearly-defined experiments should be funded, but since then, this field has received $0. [read 2004 DoE Review History]
Though still a candidate, Hekman’s strong commitment to LENR would be expected to continue should he win.
Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States against incumbent Barack Obama. As a candidate, he has mentioned cold fusion in an interview with the Washington Examiner. He did not show any in-depth knowledge, but just mentioning the words was a clue that he’s been informed by someone about recent news. [read]
In the interview, Romney also connected funding basic science and economic development:
“But basic science, in my view, is a way that research can encourage our entire economy. And so, for instance, in Michigan, some years ago — I think it was in 2007 — I spoke there and said, you know, I think we ought to embark upon an effort to do analysis on energy research, transportation research, materials research. But again, basic research which could then be either purchased by or licensed by companies foreign and domestic.”
Bruce Tarr is a Massachusetts State Senator and the first serving US legislator listed so far. He has visited MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s live demonstration of JET Energy’s NANOR device and spoken with researchers Mitchell Swartz, Peter Hagelstein, and Brian Ahern about the current research there. [read]
Tarr has also hosted inventor Andrea Rossi to discuss energy, and opportunities. As a State Senator, Tarr’s responsibility to economic development follows him closely. With state budgets shrinking amid an ongoing financial crisis, Tarr appears to be looking ahead at the opportunities for a renewed economy based on cold fusion technology. [read]
Bob Kerrey serves in the US Senate representing Nebraska. There is no record of him publicly speaking out for cold fusion, but he was recently outed in an article by the Washington Examiner highlighting his large consulting fees, one of which was “$800,000 in consulting fees in 2011 from the Sidney Kimmel Revocable Trust to help an Israeli company research cold fusion.” [read Kerrey the wealthiest Senate candidate in Nebraska Examiner 2012/04/27]
The information that Kerrey has worked with Energetics Technologies on behalf of Sidney Kimmel, the billionaire funding the University of Missouri’s LENR program, is an important indication of the behind-the-scenes activity just starting to percolate among those with financial power.
Sitting on the Congressional Committee on Space, Science and Technology is also Dana Rohrabacher, a long-time representative who was serving in 1989 when Drs. Fleischmann and Pons were under fire. Back then, Representative Rohrabacher was not sure whether or not the claims were true, but felt that it should be pursued and sorted out.
In an editorial for the Los Angeles Times on June 18, 1989, he wrote how wrong it was to attack Drs. Fleischmann and Pons for a discovery, that if confirmed, “would usher not only science but all aspects of modern life into an era of growth and improvement that mankind has not experienced since the Industrial Revolution”. [read Turkey Today, Genius Tomorrow: Cold Fusion Attempt Has Noble Lineage in Science LA Times 1989/06/17]
Rohrabacher has since been silent on cold fusion. Cold Fusion Now has sent several mailings of letters, along with Cold Fusion Now stickers, to his Energy sub-committees, with no response.
However, our last mailing requesting hearings on the funding practices of Advance Research Projects – Energy ARPA-E may have helped to spark the subsequent hearings held in January 2012 which brought heads of DoE and ARPA-E to the chamber for questioning. [read]
ARPA-E then released funding for ‘Transformative Energy Technologies’. It is not known if any projects relating to cold fusion or LENR were funded. [read]
In 1992, researcher, author and Infinite Energy magazine founder Eugene Mallove had questioned then-Presidential-candidate Bill Clinton in Concord, New Hampshire about cold fusion. Candidate Clinton admitted “knowing that scientists in Arkansas were ‘stonewalled’ by the US Department of Energy” and “promised to do something about investigating cold fusion if elected”.
He never did.
Arthur C. Clarke asked the Clinton President’s Office to contact Infinite Energy requesting a brief on the matter, near the end of President Clinton’s eight-year reign in 2000. Mallove responded with a comprehensive memo which included this quote:
“… If we only had a way to tap this fusion energy safely and cheaply, the world’s energy problems would be over; most if not all environmental problems would be well on their way to solution. If we could find a way to release this fusion energy benignly without deadly radiation, and on a small scale, rather than in the stadium-like tokamak thermonuclear fusion reactors–smaller, dysfunctional prototypes of which are being tested at fantastic cost at Princeton, MIT, and elsewhere–a millennial revolution in energy technology would break out.
It would mean an age in which the recurring cost of energy production would approach zero, since the heavy hydrogen is virtually free. The scope of that revolution would dwarf today’s Internet-World Wide Web upheaval. The age of “free information” would have a partner: the age of virtually free energy! It may surprise you to learn that the energy discovery described above was made in the United States in the early 1980s, announced in 1989, and subsequently confirmed by solid published scientific research–some of that by Federal laboratories. …” –Eugene Mallove
Read the full text of President Clinton’s Cold Fusion Memo here.
The same memo was copied to President George W. Bush as well.
A new energy technology is being developed by independent scientists and inventors without the benefit of federal funding. Ignorance of this from our political class is detrimental to the future of our species as we are in the throes of an irreversible decline in easy access to fossil fuels.
We need explicit plans to move this research and technology quickly into use.
If you call yourself an environmentalist or if you call yourself a free-enterprise entrepreneur, a social activist or a parent; for anyone who desires a free and peaceful future, we ask you to start talking about what’s going down on the new energy front with your representatives, and stay informed, so you can demand of your politicians the actions necessary to bring this technology forward.
“Forward”.
President Obama’s new campaign slogan.
Yes. Let’s move forward for
Cold Fusion Now!
Related Links
Cold fusion economy supported by Greek government by Ruby Carat May 7, 2011
US Senate candidate Randy Hekman puts LENR first by Ruby Carat December 20, 2011
Republican candidate Mitt Romney speaks out for cold fusion by Ruby Carat December 9, 2011
Masachusetts state Senator Bruce Tarr visits Still-Operating JET Energy NANOR Demo by Ruby Carat April 19, 2012
Letters to Congressional Energy Sub-committees repeat hearing request by Ruby Carat November 13, 2011
PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT by Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader, Roger Bezdek, MISI, Robert Wendling, MISI February 2005
Energy Catalyzer Home
Defkalion Green Technologies Home
The energy industry spends 0.3% of its sales on R&D, significantly less than other industries.
Excellent piece Ruby. You have covered much of the political arena as it stands now. There are other politicians who are becoming aware of the astonishing progress made in LENR. Randy Hekman is the most informed simply because he has an engineering degree from MIT and understands the technology (though he still subscribes to Widom Larsen – since shown to be severely lacking.) BUT he does claim he will push for financing IF elected. Here is his energy plank:
“The simple reality is that our economy depends on energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas to function. Energy exploration – mining and drilling – provide needed jobs and the energy these industries produce keep our economy moving. We need to end the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol, wind and geothermal. The best alternative energy program is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). We must work to develop this energy program.“
BTW, I happen to think Randy’s non-LENR energy platform is overly conservative and very old school. We need to transition oil, coal and gas workers to new manufacturing jobs in renewable fuels, IT, private aerospace, EV manufacturing, LENR appliance manufacturing, etc. LENR is a whole new industry ultimately bigger than oil AND automobiles. Here’s one POV on the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmSzqMLA670
Unless the Presidencial race is particularly close, Obama nor Romney will bring up a wild card like LENR, particularly after what the media did to Gingrich and his moon colony idea. Even (if) when Defkalion comes out with the first LENR generator this summer (smack dab into the middle of the Presidencial race) I doubt the MSM will bring up the subject (hope I’m wrong).
On the other hand, the Paradigm of Abundance is a natural topic (or template) for the Romney campaign. Too bad Romney seems to be counting on cutting Obama and the economy down, rather than giving us hope that the future is bright (unless of course he is elected, otherwise we will live in a fascist/communist/socialist/failed state after another Obama term).
BTW, notice SpaceX this month is flying a spacestation mission? The future appears to be non-govermental corporations, not governmental agencies. Unless Democrates get 60+ seats in the US Senate, gridlock can be expected into the future (Republicans don’t have a chance of getting a veto proof majority in the US Senate in 2012).
The Energy Industry is on the whole hidebound by trdition and awaits others to lead it . An exception is a couple of the large oil companies such as Exxon.
They do a good deal or research but hold the reults so close to their vest that only a tiny group[ has access to it even within their own company. Any thing that threaten the stus quop is held off themarket to keep prices and the drain on the consumer in it’s continuance.
Note Exxon’s patents in the filed of geopressured gas development an historic experience that would have proved up the huge natural gas reserves available to the US industry and consumer.
This would have cut into their oil profits so it has taken 30 years for Exxon to turn to natural gas as a future salable product of emphasis. Oil had to get short and their refineries old.
Note both Shell and Amoco – now BP – proved up Fleischmann and Pons work in 1995 but only recently released any of their results for fear of encouraging a competitive field.
Their interests are limited and societal conscience zip. Note how long it took for horizontal drilling to come into play and then who supported it in it’s development.
Strategies but not optimal for the public or the companies. Their perspectives are faulty and some one is goin to eat their lunch.
I wrote this and didn’t give any attention to any other policies of these individuals. This was a survey of who in our government in the US has at the least mentioned the words cold fusion in an encouraging manner.
I follow Gerald Celente’s way as a political atheist. Parties are an after-image of a reality long gone.
OH! And I just realized, Bob Kerrey WAS governing. In fact, Bob Kerrey did more governing than anybody else serving in the Senate.
Helping a cold fusion company set up to investigate the nature of one of the few energy choices left to humanity did more for our peaceful coexistence on this planet than any vote on current legislation.
You govern Mr. Kerrey!
Thank you Steve Schor, my after-post proof-reader.
Thanks Ruby,
I am quickly sending your article to every political, activist, and environmental group I can think of. Yes the $800,000 in consulting fees certainly caught my attention. Wow!
Anyways… the U.S. certainly has… and still may be stonewalling cold fusion. Preventing a loss on invested carbon infrustructure is the main thrust of this MIT energy initiative and has been the main concern of politicians in America. Otherwise we would have seen funding for cold fusion through the DOE during the Clinton years.
Thanks again for your hard work in doing this, “The scope of our energy-related research is certainly important (transportation, agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial//fossil, nuclear, renewable, end-use efficiency, operational efficiency), as will be the our ability to move ourselves, and our audiences up, the knowledge infrastructure.” better than MIT.
http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/el98-004a.pdf
ISSUES IN ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Stephen R. Connors
M.I.T. ENERGY LABORATORY
Room E40-465, connorsr@mit.edu
tel: 253-7985, fax: 253-8013
From page 4
(must be referring to the oil and coal cartels… )
Those who argue for a gradual transition point out that there are many ways to increase energy efficiency and therefore energy sustainability even as we continue to use fossil fuels. Another reason for taking a gradual, evolutionary approach is that we need to balance the environmental advantages of a transition to renewable and inexhaustible resources against the economic and social costs of the transition.
“Our fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure represents a massive global investment in goods and services. As we make the transition to other sources of supply, we need to make sure that we do not squander our past investment in fossil fuel infrastructures.”
From page 11, Conclusions part IV
Governments, corporations and consumers must develop policies and practices that meet both financial goals and broader economic, environmental and social performance goals. Such transitions in both technologies and policies will require long, sustained efforts.
“Fortunately, incremental improvements in energy use are less disruptive to the economy and society-at-large, and offer many side benefits.”
From page 14, Appendix: Thoughts on Mapping: Scopes and Levels of Knowledge
“The scope of our energy-related research is certainly important (transportation, agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial//fossil, nuclear, renewable, end-use efficiency, operational efficiency), as will be the our ability to move ourselves, and our audiences up, the knowledge infrastructure.”
I don’t think that the government would be able to stonewall such a break through if it weren’t for the fact that people have become so disenfranchised with the system that they hid their heads in their IPhones and tune out of life. We don’t vote because we are continuously disillusioned by the abject corruptness of our senators and our presidents and to a lesser extent our more local politicians.
Ok, so we have a 2 party system, but rather than dropping out we need to come together. Meet people, form friendships, peaceably assemble, form hundreds if not thousands of secret societies, become involved by running for lower positions and infecting the corrupt political empire with honest intelligent people once again. If a negative cancer has been allowed to bring our world into decline, couldn’t a similar positive infestation restore the world to prosperity?
Those seeking to become rodents of the new millennium, must try hard not to align themselves with the existing establishment except as far as it serves to meet their objectives. The rich and powerful are our enemy we all know that, but a head on confrontation is not possible, but there is another way. Infect them from within, infest their domain, crawl all over them like a pack of cockroaches, and slowly disassemble their fortresses of power from within.
Be the cockroach, live the cockroach, the cockroach will outlive us all!!!