Edmund Storms on “Transition”

The graph of the Oil Age shows a thin blip in geological time with an Era of Cold Fusion for the future – and a “little” space between them.

Oil Age and the Era of Cold Fusion
The Oil Age is a blip. Cold fusion can take humanity beyond what can be foreseen.

The transition from dirty fossil fuels and today’s dangerous nuclear power plants into clean cold fusion will entail the dismantling of an entire infrastructure core to the economy and culture of the world, and particularly for the Western nations.

The scale and reach are staggering.

What would a transition narrative look like? Edmund Storms, LENR researcher and author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction has thought about these issues for two decades, and has some compelling scenarios.

We spoke with Dr. Storms this past August and this is what he had to say on “Transition”.

Related Links

Oil Age lasted a century; Era of Cold Fusion to fuel millenia by Ruby Carat from Cold Fusion Now October 19, 2011

The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction by Edmund Storms from World Scientific Books

Edmund Storms Kiva Labs YouTube channel

Edmund Storms on the Rossi device: “There will be a stampede.” portions of James Martinez March 1 interview transcribed by Ruby Carat from Cold Fusion Now March 4, 2011

10 Replies to “Edmund Storms on “Transition””

  1. The invisible hand of the market will predictably force market penetration. In other words, there is NO WAY the US regulators will be able to significantly retard the adoption of LENR just to protect vulnerable energy industries. It isn’t like (for instance) prescription drugs, where they are double the cost in the US. LENR energy is something like one tenth as expensive – can you imagine prescription drugs ten times more expensive across the board for a drug that everyone uses all the time?? The public wouldn’t stand for it, and even if they did, they would get the pants beaten out of them by countries that did adopt LENR quickly.

    No, don’t think of this linearly, the correct way of looking at this is exponentially: there is a new paradigm, not a transition but a break. Energy is the main constrain in our economy, and soon it won’t be.

    1. When China and other countries begin to adopt this technology, regulators will have a tough time slowing down the process for us in the States. But until then, and certainly so far, the “regulators” have been the DOE, and they’ve done their darndest to block this technology for two decades.

      I think Dr. Storms is describing more of a break, as he notes that cold fusion reactors cannot replace radioactive fuel rods, or coal burners, one-for-one, as I had previously stated, and thought could happen. Cold fusion technology is so completely different, one would not modify and existing power plant, the cost would be such that one would just build a new power plant. Thus, there is no “transition” in the technology, only a transition that is more termed a “break”.

      But however disruptive, however short, the break itself can be termed a transition.

      When people are beginning to be laid off more and more, as the old infrastructure contracts, there will be powerful lobbies for propping up the waning industry, and people who are hurting will be strong voices. What will they say?

      The public has to learn about this technology, and learn how safe and clean it is, and then regulators will have difficulty in slowing this process. Without public support, the US will be last to get this.

      To keep talking, and keep typing the words, is really a public service for our future.

      1. “cold fusion reactors cannot replace radioactive fuel rods, or coal burners, one-for-one”

        I’ve seen no credible counter argument to the near-term transition tactic of substituting cold fusion steam generators in existing power plants. The critical point of interface is the steam input, not the fuel rods or coal burners.

        1. Hi James Bowery, As I understood Dr. Storms when I spoke with him, he seemed to indicate to me that it was much more of an engineering issue, in other words, yes, the cold fusion reactors could make steam, but re-designing the power plant hardware for these new units would be enough trouble and with high enough cost that you would conclude it best to just build a separate plant. And if you were going to spend the money to build a new cold fusion reactor steam-electricity plant, then the costs would be such that you would just choose to put them directly in homes.

          I had also thought that the radioactive fuel rods, and the coal-fired steam, could be replaced one-for-one, if we chose to do it. I believe that is still true, but the modifications to existing infrastructure would be costly enough to effectively not consider it practical.

  2. The research into these type of reactions in the near future will move very quickly.
    This reaction will be used for transportation.
    The energy to weight ratio will make this very possible and very logical.
    We are no longer analog with our research we are digital and because of this fact the breakthroughs in designs of the use of this energy will happen every day for some time.

    Just an example of the energy to weight ratio in the near future.
    You would be able to reduce in size of the Apollo Rocket needed for the trip
    to the moon down to the size of a Mini Van comparing this “energy to weight ratio” to today’s Technology.

    Just imagine what something the size of a Mini Van could be capable of if it could produce 1 Million pounds of thrust both in the air and in the vacuum of space.

  3. The research, development, production and implementation of the
    future products that use these type of reactions will employ many Millions more
    of the worlds people than those that now work in the oil industry.
    If this holds to be real, it will be a very exciting time to be alive.
    Our children will have a very bright future to look forward too.

Comments are closed.