Republican candidate Mitt Romney speaks out for Cold Fusion

The Washington Examiner’s Transcript of our interview with Mitt Romney published here has this mention of cold fusion from the Republican Presidential candidate:

CARNEY: What role should government have in promoting certain industries or economic activities such as homeownership, or manufacturing, renewable energy or fossil fuel energy, exports, or just advanced technology? What sort of subsidies and incentives do you favor? You had some of these in Massachusetts, I know.

ROMNEY: Very limited — my answer to your first question. I’m not an advocate of industrial policy being formed by a government. I do believe in the power of free markets, and when the government removes the extraordinary burdens that it puts on markets, why I think markets are more effective at guiding a prosperous economy than is the government.

So for instance, I would not be investing massive dollars in electric car companies in California. I think Tesla and Fisker are delightful-looking vehicles, but I somehow imagine that Toyota, Nissan, and even General Motors will produce a more cost-effective electric car than either Tesla or Fisker. I think it is bad policy for us to be investing hundreds of millions of dollars in specific companies and specific technologies, and developing those technologies.

I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with — with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.

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.

CARNEY: For instance, nuclear power right now is getting loan guarantees under both Bush and Obama policies to help develop nuclear power more rapidly. Is that the sort of thing that you would support?

ROMNEY: My inclination would be to do this: It would be to say that – if we went to the nuclear people and they say that, you know, if you could give us our permits in three years, then we wouldn’t need any help. And so what I might be willing to do is say we will either give you your permits in three years or refund the money to you we’ve invested to build the facility or to reach this point. We will, in effect, give a guarantee that you will not be prevented from developing nuclear power by virtue of government’s malfeasance and ineffectiveness. And so rather than saying, here, we’ll give you a bunch of money to build a nuclear facility, we would instead guarantee certain government action.

In an area, sometimes it’s hard to find the line between research and development. In the area of nuclear research, for instance, there is discussion of an entirely different technology for building very small nuclear plants that use a pebble-type technology, as opposed to the rods that – you’re familiar with this – there’s a discussion about building a model facility to see if that technology actually works. I actually consider that research. It would be owned by the government; perhaps we’d hire companies to build it; and we’d see if it works. And if so, then that technology could be licensed to any number of companies, again, foreign or domestic, to build facilities here and around the world.

That, again, is if we don’t think that there is going to be sufficient interest in that part of industry to carry out research which has a very high-risk of failure and requires a great deal of resources.

It’s election season in the US, and time to demand better from our representatives. Now is the time to be planning your 2012 Campaign for Clean Energy.

How will you contact your political party and inform them of the one solution that’s been missing?

Access audio of this statement at the 3:30 mark.
Cold fusion is mentioned at 5:06 mark.

Uncle Sam says:

11 Replies to “Republican candidate Mitt Romney speaks out for Cold Fusion”

  1. Romney’s answer re electric cars is consistent with his ignorance of the fact that small business and emerging companies are the key to jobs and economic growth.

    His history is one of investments that destroy jobs in large numbers.

    He is a shallow individual who is dangerously incompetent to be the President of the USA.

    CHEAP GREEN at has recently been updated to include a possible hot fusion breakthrough by a small firm in Australia. They claim 40 watts input for one Megawatt output.

    There is also excellent progress being made with magnetic generators that need no fuel. However, until the work moves further toward independent confirmation and shows signs it is ready to commercialize, it is not ready for publicity.

    1. Isn’t it strange that the only candidates to speak out for cold fusion have been Republicans? What’s up with the Dems? What’s up with Green Party? What’s up with all the parties?

      Rearview mirror thinking, that’s what. The political process is obsolete, but nobody realizes it yet.

      Cold fusion will disrupt everything, including our participation (or lack thereof) in politics as usual.

  2. Mark is right . .. Romney and the Republican party have destroyed jobs in large numbers.

    Dr Rossi is moving cold fusion to the forefront – NOT NASA when they should be exploring what Dr Rossi has they are worried about their reputations.


  3. It is not in the causes interest to conflate over-unity devices (Perpetual motion machines) with Cold Fusion. The public that we are trying to educate are susceptible to distraction.

    On the other hand, I must not fall into the trap of being a pseudo-sceptic. A pseudo-sceptic is someone believes he has the answer, no matter what the evidence of his eyes is.

    For instance if a working over-unity device was before me, then I as a sceptic would have to say “Yes. Over-unity devices exist.” A pseudo-sceptic would stubbornly deny it’s existence as it is in conflict with his precious model of reality.

    However in the battle for ears, we would be wise to distance ourselves from perpetual motion machine people.
    And more power to them too! We are all on the same side.

    1. And one last thought. It is not what we know that will save us. It is that which is yet to be discovered.
      Fie to the God of the Gaps!
      My God is the God of the Yawning Chasms.

  4. Rossi is an independent, so he does not need the approval from anyone to proceed with development and since he has such a simple design he is succeeding it appears. NASA however has to go through approval to get anything accomplished .

    you will find this very informative. it says that NASA has already built a device that will produce heavy electrons. this is huge!

    1. Richard K. Lyon in his May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News, mentioned that Pons and Fleischmann were thinking about heavy electrons. “From the media accounts, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment appeared to have been motivated by the speculation that since electrons in a conduction band move collectively, it is possible for a conduction-band electron to act as if it were much more massive than a free electron. Thus, if there is a dislocation in the matrix of palladium ions, a site at which occupancy by two deuterium ions is marginally possible, an electron between these two deuterium ions might, by virtue of is effectively greater mass, bring them close enough for fusion to occur.”

  5. I hate to be pessimistic, but Romney is especially vulnerable to fossil fuel industry pressure. Sure, he says he is for “free enterprise” now, but wait until his big money donors are asking him to put the breaks on LENR. Just like Republicans were all for states rights because they didn’t get their way on the Supreme Court for example on abortion, but now all of a sudden when they are winning on a Federal level, like for Medical Marijuana and they suddenly are thinking twice about state’s rights.

    Romney is notorious for changing his positions at the drop of a hat. He would sell us down the river in a New York minute on LENR if it would get me more campaign money and support.

  6. Prediction: I still think it’s Romney’s race to lose. But he could sure lose it.Romney Cant Take His Mitts Off Human Relations Education
    The list of names reflects a cross section of people including those thought to be politically conservative and evangelical Christians. Named are, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ralph Reed, Paul Weyrich, Tom Monaghan, James Bopp, Ann Coulter, Bob Jones, Jay Sekulow, and Mark DeMoss.
    [url= ]kaye stevens [/url]
    [url= ]kaye stevens [/url]
    [url= ]hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [/url]
    [url= ]maurice sendak [/url]

  7. Please consult Belgian patents with publication numbers BE1002780 and 1002781 being
    withheld from publication for 2 years by the Belgian Ministry of Defense without mentioning any reason. Original documents can be downloaded through ESPACENET a European patent data site available through Google.The documents relate to LANR.

    Good luck

Comments are closed.