“What The Frack Is Going On?”
From our pal Suzy Williams, diva of the West Wide, beach and bicycle activist, who wrote this song in response to the documentary film “Gasland“.
Related Links
Suzy Williams at http://www.laughtears.com/.
Suzy Sings a Superwave by Ruby Carat January 14, 2011
Answering “Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy”
Whether you are a scientist or just a regular Jane, how do you evaluate the claims of a new energy technology?
In 2003, Michael C. Ruppert, author of Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil and star of the movie Collapse, posed “Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy“. You can read these queries on his old website From the Wilderness. His new site is Collapsenet.com.
The questions created criteria for evaluating the claims of alternative energies like the renewables: wind, solar, and hydro, as well as ethanol. It was his response to those who advocated replacements for oil and gas which produced flat or negative energy return on energy investment EROEI, like ethanol.
Of concern was M. King Hubbert’s Peak Oil, the condition of reaching maximum production capacity for oil, after which is irreversible decline. The need for solutions to a looming, deep energy deficit had many hoping for an alternative energy solution, but their expectations did not match the realities.
Eight years later, the possibility of a clean energy technology marketed to the world moved closer to physical reality with the recent demonstration in Italy of a cold fusion “steam engine”. Inventor Dr. Andrea Rossi’s ECat boiler produced 12 Kilowatts of power over an hour, using a fuel of hydrogen and nickel.
Low-energy nuclear reactions have been a science for the last 22 years. Now, it seems that a technology is in sight, a technology that promises a nuclear-sized power with no emissions or radio-active waste. How do these claims stand up to Mr. Ruppert’s Nine Questions?
Jed Rothwell of lenr.org has long been involved with low-energy nuclear reactions research, and is the author of Cold Fusion and the Future, a look at the implications of cold fusion technology and the changes and challenges it may bring. We asked Mr. Rothwell to respond.
(Note: Question 9 had multiple parts which we numbered to fifteen questions!)
1. How much energy is returned for the energy invested (EROEI)?
With oil or coal there is significant “energy overhead” meaning it takes energy to extract energy. With oil this is roughly 10% to 20% depending on where the oil is extracted, the type of well, how far the oil is shipped, and what grade of fuel the refinery produces.) Coal is more efficient; the overhead is around 8%. (Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel, Food, Energy, and Society, Revised Edition. 1996: University Press of Colorado, p. 17.)
The only significant energy overhead with cold fusion is the energy used to extract heavy water from ordinary water. This is 0.05% with today’s heavy water extraction techniques, and it will probably be less in the future, because the techniques should improve. (Rothwell, J, Cold Fusion and the Future, p. 46.)
Total worldwide production of energy will consume roughly 6,000 tons of heavy water per year, which is enough to fill 2.4 Olympic size pools. Some additional heavy water will be needed to cover losses from evaporation, broken cells and so on. (Rothwell, J, Cold Fusion and the Future, p. 34.)
2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?
Yes. Roughly 200 major laboratories have verified many aspects of cold fusion, especially excess heat and tritium. A small number of laboratories have confirmed neutrons and helium production. These are much more difficult to measure.
3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?
If you visit the laboratory you can see experiments producing cold fusion. This is what Prof. Robert Duncan did on the “60 Minutes” segment broadcast in 2009. There is only one commercial or practical scaled device. It was demonstrated by Rossi et al. at U. Bologna on January 14, 2011.
Watch CBS 60mins Cold Fusion More than Junk Science
4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?
The energy comes from nuclear fusion.
5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?
Nothing defies the laws of thermodynamics. That is impossible. Cold fusion is measured using calorimetry, which is predicated upon the laws of thermodynamics.
6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?
No. All major claims confirmed by mainstream peer-reviewed journal process. The claims may seem extravagant to people unfamiliar with the scientific literature, but that is a subjective state of mind.
7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?
Cold fusion produces minute amounts of helium, far smaller than the existing background, and low levels of tritium which is dangerous but can be contained. It produces far less nuclear waste and radioactivity than uranium fission, and roughly 11 million times less radioactivity than plasma fusion.
8. Can I see the blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?
Yes. Thousands of papers about cold fusion have been published, including roughly 1,000 in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
9. Infrastructure requirements: Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it?
Yes. Cold fusion cells are similar to batteries. They require precision manufacturing and careful handling of some toxic materials. Tritium must be removed during recycling. Mildly radioactive substances when handled correctly are not a hazard. Tritium is used today in some wristwatches and in emergency exit signs in buildings. Radioactive americium is used in smoke detectors.
10. How will it be transported and used?
If cold fusion can be made practical, it will be built into devices. There is no need to transport it. Both cold fusion and plasma fusion produce roughly 1.5 million times more energy per gram of fuel than chemical energy sources, so there is no need to transport fuel. An average automobile will use roughly 1 g of heavy water per year.
11. Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations?
It will require new engines, but no pipelines, filling stations or any other distribution infrastructure.
12. What will these cost?
Cold fusion generators and engines should cost roughly as much as a conventional chemical ones now do. They probably will not require rare or expensive materials, and they should require roughly as much precision and cleanliness as NiCad batteries do. The fuel for cold fusion generators — heavy water or deuterium gas — is virtually free. U.S. per capita annual fuel costs are presently $2,499 according to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. DoE. The deuterium fuel needed to replace this would cost roughly $1.
13. Who will pay for them and with what?
Consumers will pay for them. Since the fuel is virtually free the overall cost of owning these machines will be lower than today’s models.
14. How long will it take to build them?
Once commercial devices become available they will replace most major energy consuming devices such as automobiles, heating and air-conditioning units, and appliances as rapidly as these machines wear out and are replaced. These machines normally last 10 or 20 years. Some heavy equipment such as railroad locomotives and aircraft last longer than 20 years. Large centralized power generators last much longer than 20 years, but these will not be needed with cold fusion.
15. What do you think of these questions in regards to evaluating alternative energy? Are they sufficient?
Some of these questions are not applicable to cold fusion. The questions that should be asked of any scientific claim about energy (or any other subject) are: Has the claim been peer-reviewed and independently replicated? In the case of cold fusion, the answer to both is yes.
Is this a scientific debate?
Twenty-two years, and counting:
From the Wikipedia article on Cold Fusion:
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2010)
Go to the talk page and see the dedicated patience that answers the “queries”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
I’m all for scientific debate. The minority has a right to be heard. But the cold fusion scientists ARE the minority, and the black-out of information on this science has continued for two decades.
So, hundreds of scientists and labs around the world are wrong?
It’s possible.
And research universities and energy agencies around the world are wrong?
It’s possible.
And the Naval Research Lab did not find positive results?
It’s possible.
And the Army Research Lab isn’t interested?
It’s possible.
And Energetics Technologies has not been producing results?
It’s possible.
And SRI is measuring the input power wrong for 22 years?
I’m sorry, but that’s NOT possible.
And the likelihood that all these people and institutions together, over the last twenty-two years of research, are all wrong is minuscule.
It’s unconscionable that in this day, when our energy crisis is in full-tilt, that we wouldn’t investigate this one solution that has the potential to solve all our energy problems, for the entire world, over the entire planet.
Ultra-clean nuclear power from water. No dangerous radioactive materials involved. No CO2 emissions like hydrocarbons. A scalable power source independent of large corporate energy utilities that would allow communities control over their own energy. An energy source that can take humanity through another evolution.
And who stands to lose when the people win?
When the public finds out about what’s been kept from them, well, let’s just say that the apathy that exists today may not continue.
But don’t get mad.
Get even.
For visual-space die-hards, incrementalism is the standard for scientific dogma.
Clearly, they don’t understand that over the last two decades, researchers at Energetics Technologies have upped the reproducibility of the cold fusion effect to 73%, and it is more likely that we will have cold fusion before any hot fusion facility is able to provide enough power to microwave a pizza.
Listen to Dr. Michael McKubre and Dr. Irving Dardik on the Groks Science Show from May 6, 2009.
http://www.archive.org/details/groks374
Learn everything you can about low-energy nuclear reactions! (Funny, I never even conceived saying that sentence!)
Share it with your friends, your family, and everyone you meet!
Support the scientists who have labored in isolation, with none but each other to share their results with.
And when cold fusion bursts on the scene, WE’LL be ready!
“Renewable Energy: Facts and Fantasies” has conversation on cold fusion
A new publication Renewable Energy: Facts and Fantasies by Craig Shields, the editor of www.2greenenergy.com, surveys the renewable energy field and has a chapter on cold fusion.
It consists of a short conversation with Wally Rippel, a long-time researcher in electric vehicle batteries who has worked in both government and industry.
The 5-page conversation begins on page 171 and is most interesting for the bit of background given on Wally’s experience talking about cold fusion at Caltech, one of the premier research universities in the US.
Here’s a brief excerpt of the conversation the author/editor Craig Shields had with Wally:
CS: OK, thanks. I think I understand the physics now—at some level, at least. But why is this so controversial? Why do people believe that this is bad science, a hoax? I would think that it either happens or it doesn’t.
WR: Actually, the human side of the equation is even more interesting than the science. There has been a calculated effort to discredit the idea of cold fusion. For obvious reasons, cold fusion threatens existing energy-related interests, and those interests have been intensely aggressive with throwing people off the trail.
CS: But I heard that the people who looked into this couldn’t find nuclear products.
WR: Ah. That’s simply not true. The researchers from Cal Tech and MIT did find nuclear products; they fudged the numbers to get the DoE off the case. The US Navy and Lawrence Livermore have also found clear evidence of nuclear results. And even when they admit they find nuclear products, they would say things like, “Oh the engineering on this will be really hard.” I’m not saying it will be easy, but that’s like saying, “There is a trillion dollars in that safe over there, but there is no use trying to get at it because the combination lock might be hard to open.” All these ridiculous ideas are a result of the enormous pressure to agree with the idea that cold fusion is a hoax.
CS: To me, this sounds a lot like what I hear about the science—and the politics—behind global warming. I hear that even extremely senior people are ostracized all the time for not conforming to the mainstream viewpoints on the subject.
WR: Exactly right. Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, best known for his X-ray laser, is also a strong proponent of cold fusion. He’s been isolated from the entire scientific community because of that belief. Some of the people who had investments in cold fusion testified against it, apparently so that they could maintain majority control of the development of the technology.
“Yet despite all the active attempts to divert attention away from cold fusion, the technology carries with it an enormous amount of credibility—but most of it is very quiet. For instance, the US Navy has performed experiments producing neutrons in groups of three. Also, there is an internal memo within DARPA in which they clearly state that they believe that cold fusion is real.”
“Energy companies have worked hard to discredit cold fusion, though, with the Obama administration, they will have a harder time doing this than they did under Bush.”
“Cal Tech has done almost no research in the subject. After the Great Electric Car Race, I was asked to be the parade master for the celebration in Pasadena. When he talked publicly about the race, [Cal Tech president] Dr. Lee DuBridge always used my name rather than his own in discussing the project. I once asked him why he did this, and he told me, “As the president of Cal Tech, my number one responsibility is fund-raising. That’s all I’ll say.”
“What you need to know to understand this is that the oil companies make huge annual contributions. Fred Hartley, Union Oil’s president and trustee of Cal Tech, explained that he would tell the school, “We won’t be able to continue to make these contributions if you are developing technology that represents a threat to us.” What Union Oil is doing is not illegal. There’s no law that says an oil company has to contribute to Cal Tech. Depending on your viewpoint, it’s not even immoral.”
End quote.
A summary/review by George Alger of the the book is available here at Renewable Energy World.
The book is available for purchase or a free download if your register here.