Is it finally happening?? A big market shift in the energy sector is claimed!!

A little background – I’ve been a LENR activist for a while here, and have been waiting for such a market movement. If this source I’ll link you to is accurate, that is now occurring, and is a gigantic paradigm shift that will rival any in our lifetime. Unfortunately, I don’t have the tools to verify the accuracy of what was claimed. First here is the claim:

“The fact that oil companies like BP, Shell, Exon, and a host of others are all selling off their oil fields around the world, that Petrobas who spent a decade to acquire the controlling interest in a texas oil refinery, now are desperate to sell it at a loss.

The fact that Nuclear power plant owners are cancelling their big investment projects, and preparing to close their plants.

The fact that Siemans have have dropped all their Nuclear Power plants and attached industries as well as all of their green power industries where they were a world leader, including a multi billion dollar project to place their solar cell technology in the Sahara to provide electricity to Europe that they just cancelled like it was nothing despite millions already invested”

Now, here is the primer that explains it. Note the source of the first link.

“A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude.” ( ).

This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers:

“Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

“Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

By the way, here is a survey of some of the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization:

For those who still aren’t convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence:

Frankly, I doubt a normal person can even believe such a gigantic paradigm shift is occurring, but if it can be verified, it is the story of the new century.

26 Replies to “Is it finally happening?? A big market shift in the energy sector is claimed!!”

  1. It is not so much a paradigm shift as a Paradigm Quake. The estimate is that it will equal the Industrial and computer and Internet revolutions combined adding between 15% to ~24% to the world economy.

    In the original source I have added supporting links to News articles on each of the companies selling off and getting out of energy asset ownership. As I point out they have shifted to options for leasing energy assets rather than owning them; thus externalising the risk.

    Kind Regards walker

    1. You the man Walker. I have spend a few frantic hours emailing this news tip to major news outlets. Let’s see if we can recruit others to do the same. This is BIG. If we can get the talking heads to notice this trend, it can become a super-trend, ushering in LENR even faster. Appeal to their sense of fairness: is it fair that the people in the know dump their assets just before they tank, and stick them to people who haven’t heard the good news about LENR yet?

      1. I’ve tried to make inroads to the Kurzweil crowd, but so far with no luck. I bet the first thing they do is look it up on Wikipedia, where it is slammed. I have the book Abundance, the book The Singularity is Near, and the newest book How to Create a Mind. Particularly in the book Abundance a whole host of new cool inventions are touted (i.e. ever hear of the “Slingshot?”), but nowhere is LENR, probably the biggest potential LOAR contributor bar none.

        Exponential is the primary concept, where the rate of technological advance is not a linear curve (although all exponential curves look linear in the beginning), but very clearly is an exponential one. If you understand this fundamental concept, you can project out over time a very unintuitive growth in technology over a short period of time. In other words, the progress over the next decade will be about what it was the last two decades, which was about what it was over four decades a score of years ago. Since the primary heuristic people use for judging the future is what has happened in the past, most people are sadly underestimating what technological progress will give us in the near future. In my opinion, the primary example is LENR, where energy will be “too cheap to meter.”

  2. Hi walker,

    I enjoyed reading your comments here and on the CNET forum. I ran them by a friend of mine and he gave an alternative explanation that boils down to this: the big companies you mention are preparing for a world wide boom in shale gas not LENR. In his words:

    “All of the adjustments are due to the current low price of Nat Gas in the USA.

    Shale gas is everywhere – not just in the USA

    China will be found to be loaded with it. Any place their is abundant coal – there will be shale gas too.

    Then you have the certainty of profit without political risk in US tight oil.

    Not to mention that it appears that supply is catching up with demand for crude – all presaging a drop in crude prices.

    As to Nuclear – its the same problem. Nat gas is just too cheap in the US. If it gets cheap everywhere as it should in time – Nuclear cannot compete on cost.”

    Care to comment on/refute this alternative explanation? Thanks.

      1. I beg to differ. Leonardo is now marketing their one mega-watt generator (while still cautious about reverse engineering). Furthermore, a couple of LENR companies have credible third-party verifications. Those in-the-know that are hired by multi-national corporations ought to see the writing on the wall, and that is precisely the movement we would expect (the canary in the coal mind) if LENR was getting ready to emerge onto the market.

        1. Wholeheartedly agree! Shale oil is way more polluting than all other fossil based fuels. A. Rossi is the Wilbur and Oliver of the modern era. Before we submit to turning vast stretches of livable landmass into toxic swamps, let’s recognize the right future, and the one the big wigs are betting on. People will start using those guns ‘rulers’ are trying to be confiscated, when their own properties turn to wasteland.

    1. Hi Fibb

      I have heard the Shale Gas explanation but no one is a buying large enough amounts of the assets for it to be a viable explanation, Instead they are leasing and agreeing lease options (eg promises not sales), and keeping the cash they got from sale of the Oil Fields. Shell bought just 4.7 Billion dollars worth in the US and China and most of those were leases and lease options, their Oil Assets are/were hundreds of billions worth. The Shale gas story is just a smoke screen. A bit of a fib as it were; if you will pardon the pun. Nor does your explanation cover GE and Siemens buying CHP technology or Siemens dropping its 33 billion of Green assets, not to mention its Nuclear assets. Ditto EOn and N-Power. You end up having to make multiple explanations plus you have to explain the move to leasing rather than owning fossil fuel assets.

      Kind Regards walker

        1. For some Reason I can not post links via this comment system, but if you follow the link to the original source in the OP I posted them there.


          Here is the link to Walker’s comment that shows not only his rebuttal but links to support it. I would repost Walker’s entire rebuttal comment, but the link ought to suffice. It ought to be stated baldly that I never said that 100% this market movement was the result of LENR emerging, what I said what that it was a credible and possible explanation of at least some of that movement, and that furthermore, it is just the sort of movement you would expect given LENR’s imminent emergence.

    2. The problem with the fracking explanation is that natural gas is not equivalent to oil or nuclear. You don’t see a slack of demand for oil or nuclear, because each delivers a type of energy not readily replaced or supplemented by natural gas as a fuel. In fact, the price of natural gas has “de-coupled” from oil recently, so it is difficult to understand why it is de-coupled in price, but still “coupled” in asset sell-off.

      Instead, what I see is that fracking is within the sphere of consensus reality, so any market movement in energy will naturally be attributed to that (just like stock market movements are attributed to whatever narrative is currently being pushed by the mass media – for instance downward movement is readily characterized as the result of the “fiscal cliff” or “debt ceiling” debates, but upward movements during the same period are left un-diagnosised).

  3. I was thinking the same thing about the Singularity being helped by LENR, as mentioned by Paul Maher (first post). Paul Allen’s comment that exponential progress in Science and Technology will keep on going until, IT DOESN’T, is right on target. It takes a lot of money to keep the progress going. I think 16 to 24% increase in global economic output, which I think is a gross under exageration, will keep the progress going exponential. And LENR itself is an example of Kurzweils idea of new developements taking over from old (energy) paradigns that are slowing down, and keeping the exponential progress going.

    GO LENR!

    1. Yeah, LENR is the biggest boost to LOAR (the Law of Accelerating Returns) I’ve ever seen. Energy cost is like a value added tax on all goods and services. We can predictably see a big big boost to the economy, and consequentially to R&D and consumer spending on new products, when LENR emerges.

      1. yes… not only 10% as energy cost, bt also much cash saved because of less pollution, and less money lost trying to save energy at any cost…

        then not only accelerated innovation because of freed resources, less problems to design autonomous machines… all that will increase productivity too.

        also note that underdeveloped countries will catch-up more easily developed countries.
        It will save the endangered developed countries from depression and regression.

        Today we see what is the impact of expensive energy like oil, and worst of all in EU, or green energy which is 2-10 times more expensive. Lesson of economy is that to increase comfort, you should not create job, but wealth (which might need job, or not), thus increase productivity or working time, and not creating more jobs for the same result… increasing the need of work per unit of wealth simply reduce the salary, does not increase effective employment…

        hard to explain to most people in france…

  4. Many institutions are heavily invested in carbon… large retirement funds, unions, school districts, states employees, as well as non-profit foundations. Losses in the energy sector could be devastating to these organizations. If you are part of one, or even if you aren’t, this information could be crucial to the fund managers now!

  5. I’ve sent this info to maddow, in fact I’ve sent her lenr stuff for a long time… I’m probably filtered out by now, but I’ll keep trying.

    Also, thom Hartmann while not main stream news has a call in section on his show that we can bombard.

    1. I realize that this is a tangent, but my pet peeve is people who judge the veracity of information based upon superficial indicators like spelling. I have seen human resource managers reject stakes of resumes based upon nothing but a small grammatical or spelling error. This is an example of discrimination that robs our economy of billions of dollars, more so than racial or gender discrimination. The best person or idea ought to be judged on it’s own merit, not based upon superficial indicators like their hair, skin color, eye color, gender, or spelling. Function over form buddy.

Comments are closed.