David J. Nagel on Ca$h Flow: A Reasoned Approach to Funding

On his Ca$h Flow show, James Martinez has done some great interviews with cold fusion [LENR, LANR, and CANR] scientists, authors, as well as politicians and artists all discussing this most important science.

Beginning with Edmund Storms, Michael McKubre, Peter Hagelstein, and most recently, David Nagel, we’ve been treated to an inside look at an area of scientific research with a story that could double as a serial drama, a drama going on for 21 years.

That’s how long cold fusion researchers have been working on a completely new kind of science: a source of power generation that’s not conventional nuclear fusion, and it’s not cold, but some new kind of process that produces nuclear-power-sized energy using a fuel derived from sea-water.

And with an estimated sum total of $100 million invested over that same 21 years, these scientists, looked upon by their fellow peers as a fringe element, have managed to produce tens of megawatts of power from tiny fractions of a gram of a metal called palladium – and not just palladium, but other metals as well. Energy output has been produced from 25, and now to possibley 400, times the input energy!

Hello. Bon jour. Ola.

Let me repeat that: Energy output has been produced from 25 to possibly 400 times the energy input.

How does 2 kilowatts of power (that’s twenty 100-watt light-bulbs) generated from a sugar-cube sized piece of metal that ran for three months sound to you?

What if your power bill was 1/25 it’s current amount? What if it was 1/400 it’s current amount, and – you only had to pay once a couple of months? I ask you, how would that change your life?

Meanwhile, we fiddle around with the call, or rather, the continual rant, to drill the last drops of our precious hydrocarbon resources out the the most dangerous places, with the energy output to input ratio from said hydrocarbons dwindling hourly, while this promising area of research into clean energy goes on with no proper funding.

In his most recent interview, James prompted Professor Nagel to describe a funding scenario, devised by him and his colleagues, that presents a reasoned approach to programmed funding for this new energy research that has suffered so long from under-investment. He described a 5-year program starting at $20 million a year and ramping up to $40 million annually, an average of $30 million a year for five years to bring this research to the next phase, and more importantly, as Dr. Nagel describes, bring a young group of scientists into this field of research to continue to innovate and drive the next-generation energy for our planet.

What a great plan, and a great way to present to the Department of Energy, the National Research Council, and our elected officials in charge of funding these programs.

Letters must go to these Senate Committees:

1. Commerce, Science and Transportation
2. Energy and Natural Resources
3. Environment and Public Works

Letters must go to these House Committees:

1. Energy and Commerce
2. Science and Technology
3. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

These folks need to hear from us.
They need to hear that we want a new energy paradigm.
We want funding for this clean energy research.

Considering the cash thrown around these days, how much would you be willing to put up for a green nuclear power; power with a million times more energy than traditional chemical burning of gas and oil?

How much for a clean nuclear power with no harmful radiation, no radio-active waste, no CO2 emissions, decentralized, and scalable to both small and large power devices?

How much to be a leader in the world, discovering a new kind of physics, one that has never been seen before, and one that could create a renaissance of technology and exploration, without the need for resource wars?

Perhaps those who have the purse-strings would fund jobs for young scientists, so they don’t have to chase their jobs to India, China, and Russia, to get support?

Doom and gloom is everywhere and darkness reigns over our land in a great shadow of oil. Earth’s people have been rubbed together and there’s no where else to go. We need to confront our physical reality on this planet squarely.

We don’t need look back anymore, or waste another second with The Losers.
There is no more time.

The answer to systemic collapse is to focus on clean, light living and turn towards the solutions. Throw in with the best people who work on providing positive solutions to our problems, who work to better humanity, and themselves in the process, and who work to provide a future for all the people of this planet with a clean, green, and peaceful energy technology.

We can change our way of living. We’ve done it before.
And we’ll do it again. How we do it, is our choice.

To listen to James’ interviews on cold fusion, and start turning towards your solutions, go to the Cold Fusion Radio page and download some mp3s.

Get your chip body educated, and you can’t help but be lifted up out of the murky status quo the rest of our bodies seem to accept.

Letter to ARPA-E

Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to Dr. Arun Majumdar at the ARPA-E requesting funding for LANR, lattice-assisted nuclear reactions.

Also included was a lovely Cold Fusion Now bumper sticker to hitch on his wagon.

Please take 10 minutes and write a letter to support cold fusion research. Write or call your elected representatives and local and national media.

The lack of funding is a travesty, one that we must rectify.
If we don’t get off this petroleum and gas, we’re cooked – literally!

Here’s what I wrote:

Dr. Arun Majumdar
Director, ARPA-E
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Dr. Majumdar,

In researching energy issues and ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption, I was surprised to learn that there exists an extremely promising field of inquiry that gets absolutely no funding from the Department of Energy. I am talking about LANR, lattice-assisted nuclear reactions.

Have you looked at the results coming out of labs worldwide lately? Present success is generating megawatts from 0.3 grams of palladium. Energetics Technologies, based in New Jersey, has produced output energy 25 times the input energy!

Please sir, I beg you, give this research the boost it needs. It was recently assessed that a mere $10 million distributed among various groups working in the US could take this research “to the next level”. If we fail to provide a viable alternative energy beyond the renewables in this country, then someone else will. We are desperately in need of a new source of energy and oil and gas have had a great run, but it’s time to move on now.

In addition, the patent process for LANR technologies, as well as LENR low-energy nuclear reactions, and CANR chemically-assisted nuclear reactions technologies, must be updated. Wouldn’t it be great to have another Internet revolution with all the new energy devices whose fuel is deuterium from seawater?

There is no reason at all why this research isn’t supported. Please give it a chance, and we could have a renaissance in technology.

Thank you very much for your work and efforts.
Sincerely,

Your Name HERE!

Letters mailed to Senate Energy subcommittee members

It’ll take a couple of weeks to get through security, but 15 senators will have a nice surprise waiting for them when they get back from recess. Each member on the Energy sub-committee got a unique letter requesting funding for low-energy nuclear reactions research accompanied by two complimentary Cold Fusion Now stickers.

Here’s a sample letter sent to Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan:

Senator Debbie Stabenow
133 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator Stabenow,

Please lend your support for the only viable alternative energy beyond the renewables – low-energy nuclear reactions, also know as cold fusion.

We want solar and wind developed, but these are not enough to supply all our energy wants. Nuclear energy is a million times more powerful than chemical energy, and only cold fusion promises, clean, green, safe, nuclear energy from the deuterium in sea-water with no radio-active waste.

The research has gone on for the last 21 years in virtual isolation with $0 from the Department of Energy. That’s right; $0 from the DOE. Yet low-energy nuclear reaction scientists are now getting output energy 25 times the input energy!

The Naval Research Lab and the Army Research Lab both support this research, but the funds are limited. This science needs DOE funding to take the current research to a new level, where the private sector can then begin to develop new energy products. There is just no good reason why the Department of Energy withholds funding for this important research.

You’ve worked hard on issues of water, the environment, and jobs in your state of Michigan. And you also know the danger that petroleum poses. Please take a look at the current state of cold fusion research and I think you will see another opportunity to provide clean energy jobs.

Please direct the DOE to apportion funding for cold fusion research.

Thanks very much,
My name, etc…

The names of the senators who received this particular mailing are:

Sen. John Barrasso WY
Sen. Evan Bayh IN
Sen. Robert Bennett UT
Sen. Sam Brownback KS
Sen. Jim Bunning KY
Sen. Richard Burr NC
Sen. Maria Cantwell WA
Sen. Bob Corker TN
Sen. Byron Dorgon ND
Sen. Menendez NJ
Sen. Bernie Sanders VT
Sen. Jeff Sessions AL
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen NH
Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI
Sen. Mark Udall CO
Sen. Ron Wyden OR

Yes, there’s going to be changeover soon, but that’s OK. I’ll be doing a follow-up letter in October: shorter, and with more specific info relating to each member, and….I dunno……Cold Fusion Now matchbooks? Would they even make it through security???

I will ask those of you living in any of these states to call your senators in September and ask for their support on CF funding for a follow-up.

Find your senator’s info here.

Next up: it’s the House Energy subcommittee.

Not the most fun assignment, but better than some. For instance, reading the Slate article Palladium: The Cold Fusion Fanatics Can’t Get Enough of the Stuff By Sam Kean reveals the level of ignorance of commonly available scientific data by the author, and sadly, the commentators too.

The die-hard will cling to an obsolete belief with such tenacity, staying true to their name. It blows my mind that high-caliber scientists have had to endure such ignorance for two decades. I hope I won’t even have to try…

Proposed changes to the Green Party platform regarding Energy policy

The Green Party is in the process of updating their party platform. You can read and comment on the proposed changes here: http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/comments/?page_id=823

The deadline is NOW! So here’s what I’m submitting. Anybody have suggestions on how to write these words? Please respond with your comments.

You can comment directly to the Green Party California contact coordinating one set of party platform changes ( the document I am commenting on below) here: Marnie Glickman.

What follows are proposed changes to the Green Party platform Chapter 3 on Ecological Wisdom.

I am suggesting the edit below regarding Energy policy. My proposed changes are in large green font.

The idea is to distinguish between conventional fission nuclear power, and, clean fusion power, more specifically, fusion power from heavy hydrogen derived from sea-water, that occurs at room temperatures, and creates no radio-active waste.
Safe fusion power from hydrogen needs to be supported along with all of the renewables.

Whenever we say “nuclear power”, we must make the distinction. One way to do this would be to use the words “conventional nuclear power” when referring to dirty fission nuclear power plants, and use “clean fusion power” when referring to safe, green, power from hydrogen, called LENR low-energy nuclear reactions, CANR chemically assisted nuclear reactions, or simply cold fusion.

We suggest the Green Party say NO to FISSION, and YES to FUSION.

Whatever your political leaning, it makes sense to have everybody clear on the different kinds of nuclear power. I want EVERY POLITICAL PARTY to understand this difference, and support clean, green, cold fusion power. I just happen to be starting with the Greens as they are my registered party.

Now, let’s be clear: party politics are not my thing. It just goes to show how important this particular issue is that I am getting up off my *** to get involved this way.

Help the Greens. Help your third party. If words are magnets, then let’s get the right words attracting clean fusion power, no matter what the political stride.

BEGIN PLATFORM document:
*************************************************
Section: Introduction to Chapter 3 Ecological Wisdom

The sad truth is that our planet is dying. Human-induced climate change is searing a major ecological crisis across the planet.

Glaciers and polar ice shelves are crumbling. Species are being eradicated at record numbers. The biology of our planet is growing simpler — and poorer. Air pollution kills about two million people prematurely each year. Water supplies are drying up, while water systems are being sold off to big corporations concerned only with their profits. Our weather is growing more violent. Meanwhile, our nation keeps building new coal plants, even though they are the most destructive way to meet our energy needs. And the Obama administration and some Democrats are pushing dangerous new nuclear power plants.
Greens propose a decisive break from this madness. We must save our planet — before it is too late.

Here is our Green vision:
To forestall disaster, we call for an immediate halt in greenhouse gas emissions increases, and reducing these emissions 95% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.
As a nation with less than 5% of the world’s population, we cannot continue to consume 25% of the world’s energy resources.

Greens support a decisive shift away from coal, oil, and [conventional] nuclear power, towards clean and renewable energy such as wind, solar, ocean power, geothermal and small-scale hydropower, and [clean fusion from hydrogen].
We call for extensive energy conservation efforts, to reduce energy consumption by 50% in 20 years.
We call for a massive financial commitment to developing clean renewable energy technologies [and safe, low-temperature fusion derived from seawater].
We call for major federal, state and local government purchases of solar cells on government buildings, to jumpstart the solar market.
Greens are opposed to [conventional] nuclear power. The prospect of a radioactive catastrophe is ever-present, there is no safe way to dispose of the radioactive waste, and it is financially risky and more expensive than other types of energy production.

We call for early retirement of nuclear reactors in less than five years, no new [conventional fission] nuclear plants, and an end to all corporate welfare for the nuclear industry.

We support a ban on new coal-fired power plants, and phasing out of electrical production by the burning of coal.

Much of the solution to climate change is at the local level. We support massive subsidies for expanding mass transit, as well as more bike lanes, bike paths and auto-free zones.

We support major changes in agriculture. We call for a dramatic expansion of organic farming. We want to shift price supports and subsidies away from animal agriculture to plant-based agriculture, small family farms and cooperatives. We also oppose the construction of all new factory farms.

We Greens want environmental justice. That means no new siting of toxic chemical or waste facilities in areas already contaminated.

We must stop polluting so much. Greens support a shift away from the use of toxic chemicals, and towards an industrial system based on clean production.

We want to protect our nation’s beautiful public lands. We call for an end to all commercial timber cutting and clear-cutting on federal and state public lands.

We must make the economy work to save our environment, by establishing true cost pricing for all goods and services.

We must stop trade agreements from crushing our environmental standards and accelerating the destruction of natural resources.

We encourage everyone to spend more time outdoors. When we cultivate our connections with nature, we strengthen our convictions and abilities to defend our skies, oceans, land, and biodiversity.

Chapter 3 Ecological Wisdom
Section: Energy
Section Subtitle: Energy for a safe climate and a cleaner world.

U.S. dependence on and overuse of dirty and dangerous energy sources has generated an unparalleled assault on the global environment and human rights in many nations. In the U.S., low income communities and communities of color bear the greatest burden of health impacts due to exposure to emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants. Native American communities have been devastated by uranium mining, and the poor of Appalachia witness helplessly as their ancient mountains are destroyed for a few years’ worth of coal-fired electricity.

The regional and global peaks in supply of oil, gas, coal and uranium production are driving up costs of conventional fuels, threatening continued wars and social chaos. To avert this we must move beyond the dirty and dangerous energy sources immediately and invest in only the cleanest, most sustainable energy strategies. We can and must strengthen our conservation and energy efficiency standards. Of highest importance is to use less, then to use wisely, and to have clean production of what is used.

GREEN SOLUTIONS

CLEAN RENEWABLES
1. Support public subsidies for clean renewable energy technologies – technologies that do not create pollution in the course of generating electricity. These can include wind, solar (including solar thermal and concentrating solar), ocean power, geothermal, and small-scale hydro, [and low-energy fusion from hydrogen]. Since even clean renewable energy can have negative environmental impacts, care must be taken to minimize such impacts. Clean renewable energy does not include [conventional] nuclear [fission] power, any sort of combustion or process in which by-products are ultimately combusted, or hydroelectric dams that block entire rivers.

2. Federal commitment to the mass-production of cheap, non-toxic solar photovoltaic technology to enable widespread deployment of solar power. To make solar more cost-competitive, we support large-scale government purchases of solar cells for installation on government facilities.

3. We support efforts of individuals and institutions to voluntarily purchase wind and solar power products through tradable renewable energy certificates. However, there are limits to the volunteer, market-based approach to promoting clean energy. Just as we cannot expect that individual purchases of organic food will cause all food production to become organic, we cannot expect that voluntary approaches will be sufficient to fully replace current energy supplies with clean energy. We support net-metering to make decentralized energy production economically viable.

4. We support further research to identify more safe, clean renewables, [cold fusion] and safe energy storage strategies.

END THE USE OF DIRTY AND DANGEROUS ENERGY SOURCES1. Oppose further coal, oil and gas drilling or exploration.

2. Ban the construction of hydroelectric dams.

3. Ban mountaintop removal mining.

4. Stop the development of fuels produced with polluting, energy-intensive processes or from unsustainable or toxic feedstocks, such as genetically-engineered crops, coal and waste streams contaminated with persistent toxics.

5. Support small and community-scale renewable and biofuels fuel production operations or programs that recover otherwise wasted biomass or utilize clean primary energy sources such as wind and solar.

NO [Conventional] NUCLEAR POWER
1. Ban any new construction of nuclear fission power plants.

2. Decommission all existing U.S. nuclear power plants expeditiously

3. Phase out technologies that use or produce nuclear waste, including non-commercial nuclear reactors, reprocessing facilities, nuclear waste incinerators, food irradiators, and all commercial and military uses of depleted uranium.

4. Ban plutonium (MOX) fuel, nuclear fuel reprocessing, uranium enrichment, and the manufacturing of new plutonium pits for a new generation of nuclear weapons.

5. No public subsidies or bailouts for the nuclear [fission] power industry.

CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
1. Create extensive energy conservation efforts, with a goal of reducing energy consumption by 50% by 2030. (Review amount and time goal)

2. Decentralize electric grids.

3. Authorize tax-exempt bonds to finance public ownership of utilities and to allow publicly owned utilities to finance conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy projects.

4. Enact smart energy utility regulation for generation, transmission and distribution, not deregulation.

5. Support building codes for new construction that incorporate the best available energy conservation designs. For existing homes and buildings, we support programs to aid in their weatherization and increased energy efficiency.

6. Support research into advanced fuels when the purpose of the research is to develop a fuel that in its full cycle does not create more problems than it solves.

PUBLIC CONTROL AND TRANSPARENCY
1. Support municipal, county-level, and state efforts to regain control over electricity by establishing democratic, public utility systems, to locally coordinate supply and demand and to eliminate energy trading.

2. Provide ratepayers deserve full disclosure of the specific electric generating facilities used to produce their electricity.

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.

Top