Connect DOE Department of Energy LENR Cold Fusion

To the DOE Office of Information

This is the connection I have been looking for since I became interested in LENR.  The article is about DOE or so it says and it is correct, except it is really about the part of DOE called NNSA, National Nuclear Security Administration, which is nominally a part of DOE but it is not really the Energy part of DOE but the military/nuclear weapons part.
Is this a recent revelation to you or have you known about this for some time?  No one has ever mentioned to me that NNSA has funded research on LENR, possibly since the beginning in 1989.  I would really like to know why NNSA cancelled their LENR research a little over a year ago.
I am not quite sure why this seems like such a big deal to me, but it does.  I will have to take some time to think over this.
Paul Maher
Fusion Energy Sciences
Office of Science
Department of Energy

Disconnected DOE

For some time now, since and first appeared, both of which are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), there is still “0” information at the DOE’s home page,, with respect to either LENR or Cold Fusion. 

This is hard to understand in light of the fact both the aforementioned web sites have better than 1,000 selected pieces of information from NASA and many of the other National Labs and Universities.


Something nags me about the state of denial that exists at their home page.

Can someone fill me in?


Did the 2004 US DoE review reject cold fusion?


“Cold fusion,” as reviewed in 2004, was primarily the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, with palladium deuteride, through electrolytic or gas loading.

The review panel was evenly split on the issue of anomalous heat, half considering the evidence for a heat anomaly “compelling.”

The only direct evidence that the FP Heat Effect is “nuclear” is the production of helium correlated with heat, first reported by Miles in 1991, and confirmed by other groups later. There are other reported nuclear effects, such as tritium, but none of these have been correlated with heat, so far, and none are at levels  allowing them to be a major part of the reaction producing measurable heat.

On the question of whether or not the FPHE was nuclear, only one reviewer considered nuclear evidence “convincing.” About a third considered it “somewhat convincing.”

It is easy, reading the review and the related documents carefully, to understand the conclusions. The review contained this:

Results reported in the review document purported to show that  4He was detected in five out of  sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were reported to be producing excess heat.The detected 4He was typically very close to, but reportedly above background levels. This evidence was taken as convincing or somewhat convincing by some reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing 4He was cited as one possible cause for false positive results in some measurements.

Given that summary, were it accurate on fact, the conclusion of “unconvincing” was rational and sound. Notice the “lack of consistency” in five out of sixteen.

However, there were two errors. The minor error was that 5/16 is from the  Case Appendix, which is about gas-loaded palladium on a carbon catalyst base, not “electrolytic cells.”

The major error is the claim that these cells were “producing excess heat.” However, in that Appendix, heat data was given for only one cell. The Case Appendix was seriously defective, missing crucial information. If provided, it would have shown a stunning correlation between heat and helium.

However, the panel had other heat/helium evidence before it. Miles was referenced. However, the reviewers had 130 papers to consider in a short time.

Only one reviewer showed clear signs of having read Miles, the one convinced as to “nuclear.” Miles is, stand-alone, conclusive, needing only confirmation. Because Miles, and other reports as being confirmations of Miles, were missed, the crucial nuclear evidence was missed.

Instead, as is with cold fusion, a mass of data was presented on “other nuclear evidence,” all of which is relatively weak and circumstantial. The theory-du-jour was presented, quite where the panel lost interest.

Cold fusion requires a paradigm shift, and scientists do not accept paradigm shifts unless presented with conclusive evidence that they are required.

The original discovery was of a heat anomaly. The panel, for the first time, showed that there was substantial reason to consider the heat real, a major advance over the 1989 review.

Because of the theoretical implications, and because of the native unreliability of the heat effect, there is a substantial segment of the scientific community that will continue to think “there must be some mistake” with the heat evidence, until there is proof (and heat/helium is proof).  The opportunity to consider the only convincing nuclear evidence was missed, because of how the information was presented.

Had the review paper gone through peer review, the omissions would have been noticed. Had the DoE review included a substantial back-and-forth, the omissions would also have been noticed.

The 2004 DoE review demonstrates what has been missing in the consideration of cold fusion, a careful look at heat/helium.

Storms covers the issue of heat/helium in his Naturwissenschaften “Review of cold fusion (2010).”

There is lengthier coverage of the DoE review and critique of heat/helium at

Single incredible experiment

and that post links to examination of the attempted rebuttals of Miles by Jones and Shanahan.

As a community, we will prepare to return to the Department of Energy with a focused and thoroughly vetted presentation. There are those who claim DoE prejudice, and behind-the-scenes torpedoing of all cold fusion research proposals.

However, we have not openly tested this, we have only rumor and circumstantial evidence.

It is time that we listen to the skeptics, who have been saying that we haven’t convinced them. They are right, because  we failed to communicate what was necessary.

We will remedy this, and, should heat/helium still be considered inconclusive, we will resolve the issues, with a more careful and precise investigation designed to address all rational criticism. This research is precisely in line with what both DoE reviews recommended. We will do what it takes.

From 2004:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV.

(We do not know that the FPHE  is the result of a D-D fusion reaction. The heat/helium ratio indicates, but does not prove, that the effect releases helium with heat at the level expected from D-D fusion, but other processes could do this. The premature assumption of d-d fusion has afflicted cold fusion from the beginning.)

People get ready, there’s a train a-coming.


Miles, M., et al. Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathode J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.

Miles, M., et al. Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-deposition. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University: Tsinghua Univ. Press.

Miles, M. Correlation Of Excess Enthalpy And Helium-4 Production: A Review. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA:


Economics of Cold Fusion LENR Power US Department of Defense

“Economics of  Cold Fusion LENR Power” is a daunting subject for a series of articles, so complex. The savings an Ecat can bring to a homes’ budget was simple enough. I did that before I ordered one. It seemed logical to next take a look at a couple of the largest budgets in the United States of America.

An outline for a series of articles took shape.

1)  The energy demands of humanity are inexorable.

  • Definition of INEXORABLE : not to be persuaded, moved, or stopped : relentless. Example of inexorable: ‘The inexorable rise of the free energy movement.’


2)  The Department of Energy is burdened ensuring an ability to meet our day-to-day energy demands.

3)  The Department of Defense is burdened ensuring an ability to ‘Energize the Warfighter’. (pdf)

  • Energy for the Warfighter “Operational energy equates exactly to operational capability.” – General John Allen, Commander, International Security Assistance Force/United States Forces-Afghanistan (link)


4)  The DOE and the DOD are inextricably intertwined.

  • Definition of INEXTRICABLE : forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free : incapable of being disentangled or untied : not capable of being solved. Example of inextricable: ‘There is an inextricable link between dirty energy and poor health.’
  • Definition of INTERTWINE : to unite by twining one with another : to twine about one another; also : to become mutually involved.


5) All nuclear weapons deployed by the Department of Defense are on loan from the Department of Energy, which has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons.


The Department of Energy (DOE) budget provided a good starting place, simple and concise, with programs made superfulous with the advent of nearly free and unlimited energy of cold fusion LENR power. (article)


U. S. of A.  Department of  Defense

The US Department of Defense (DOD) budget proves to be more complex. Do to the importance of national energy needs being met, the existing geopolitics of energy market investment and expectations, vulnerability of production and supply, as well as the military prerogatives of energy operational security, DOD expenses related to energy comprise a large portion of their budget. The nearly free and unlimited energy of LENR will change that.

  • The Defense Intelligence Agency of the U.S. Federal government  states, “Because (cold) nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous” and “LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.” (pdf)
  • Environmental Defense Fund Reception (Energy, Security, and the Environment) As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, Renwick Gallery, Washington D.C., Wednesday, May 02, 2012

    “As Secretary of Defense, I am honored that the Environmental Defense Fund would honor the Department of Defense.  The U.S. military has a long and a very proud record when it comes to helping conserve our nation’s natural heritage. 

    Our mission at the Department is to secure this nation against threats to our homeland and to our people.  In the 21st Century, the reality is that there are environmental threats which constitute threats to our national security.  For example, the area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security:  rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 

    I was pointing out the other day that with the polar cap melting, we now have problems with regard to who claims the area in the polar region.  And very frankly, one of the things I hope we get a chance to work on is to finally get the United States of America to approve the Law of the Seas treaty, which has been hanging out there for so long.  We are the only industrialized nation that has not approved that treaty.  It’s time that we did that. 

    The quest for energy is another area that continues to shape and reshape the strategic environment – from the destabilizing consequences of resource competition to the efforts of potential adversaries to block the free flow of energy.

    Let me assure you that DoD is helping to lead this nation when it comes to preserving our environment and building a more sustainable and secure energy future.  I know you’ll have the opportunity tonight to hear from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus on the Navy’s innovative efforts on clean energy and the environment.  Through these and other visionary initiatives, I believe we are making the country more secure and protecting our national resources.

    And in many ways it’s the mission we have at the Department of Defense, which is to give our children a better life.  That mission, working with you, working with this group, working with so many others, is that we have to develop a partnership that forges a better, cleaner, and safer world for the future, in order to ensure that our children have that better life.” (link)

Not so far in the near distant future…


       “The world has completed converting to the clean, nearly free and unlimited, energy of the nuclear reactive environment of cold fusion. The race to conversion occurred at a breakneck speed never before seen in the adoption of a new technology. Fueled by both environmental and economic imperatives, this rapid conversion has changed the landscape of national and international economics.
       The Department of Defense reflects this change. The 2040 DOD budget has changed considerably with the advent of  low cost LENR power. The savings in energy costs, ($17.9 billion) are minor compared to the savings (in both money  and casualties) from eliminated fuel supply lines, fuel depots, and a decrease in operational demands for protecting oil shipments ($50 billion).” -US News 2040



We take look at the 2013 Department of Defense Budget and changes that may take place, by 2040, after the worlds’ conversion to LENR power. The DOD budget has fuel and energy expenses that will be reduced by utilizing the technology of cold fusion.

  • Fiscal Year 2013 Operational Energy Budget Certification Report “Last year, the Department consumed 116.8 million barrels (mbbls) of fuel at a cost of $17.2B ($3.51/gallon). For FY 2013, the Department budgeted approximately $16.3B for 104 mbbls of fuel and approximately $1.6B for operational energy initiatives.” (pdf)
  • “According to Deputy Secretary of Energy Poneman, that translates, with every $10 rise in the price of a barrel of oil, to more than $1.3 billion in additional costs the Department of Defense shells out for energy. Deputy Secretary Poneman also pointed out that a gallon of fuel can cost $40 or more in theater.” (link)


One of the greatest logistical problems facing today’s military is energy. It is a military prerogative to protect oil shipping lanes and secure military energy resources and supply lines throughout the world. This is costly and incurs loss of life.

  • According to a Wall Street Journal (piece) published on June 27, the Brookings Institute reports that the U.S. spends $50 billion a year protecting oil shipments. 89% of all oil is tranported by sea.
  • Remarks at the U.S.A.F. and U.S. Army Energy Forum As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn, III, Crystal City, Virginia, Tuesday, July 19, 2011, “Our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have a long logistical tail.  A majority of convoys in Afghanistan are used for fuel. We haul these supplies on roads laced with IEDs and prone to ambush. More than 3,000 troops and contractors have been killed or wounded protecting those convoys. Advances in energy technology may allow us to reduce our vulnerabilities to this type of asymmetric attack.” (link)
  • “Resupply casualties have been significant in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to CALL, they have historically accounted for about 10-12% of total Army casualties – the majority related to fuel and water transport. (report)


DOD Office for Operational Energy Plans and Programs

Statement by: Ms. Sharon Burke ‘Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs’ -Submitted to the ‘Subcommittee on Readiness – House Armed Services Committee’,  United States House of Representatives, March 29th, 2012


Chairman Forbes, Representative Bordallo, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD) programs to support the Office of the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OEPP).

For FY13, DoD anticipates spending over $16 billion on energy for military operations, which will provide more than 4 billion gallons of fuel for military operations and exercises. DoD will also invest $1.4 billion on initiatives to improve operational energy security, about 90% of which are aimed at reducing DoD’s demand for operational energy.

President Obama initiated the OEPP in June 2010, both to reflect his commitment to national and energy security and to honor the intent of Congress in calling for the establishment of an operational energy office at DoD. By statute, the purpose of the office is to transform the way DoD uses energy through guidance, policy, oversight, and coordination, as well as to serve as the primary advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on operational energy.

The mission of OEPP is to improve military effectiveness while lowering risks and costs to warfighters. In its first two years of operation, OEPP has achieved considerable progress by:

· Promoting institutional change within DoD.

· Supporting current operations with energy innovations.

· Building operational energy considerations into the future force.

For FY13, the office will continue to focus on these priorities. In doing so, OEPP has the opportunity to help transform DoD’s energy use from a vulnerability to a strategic advantage. By reducing the Armed Forces’ reliance on fuel, we aim to improve warfighting capabilities, such as range, endurance, signature, and loiter time. We aim to reduce the risk to fielded forces as they move fuel through contested territory. In the process, we believe we will lower costs for the taxpayer, promote good stewardship of natural resources, and contribute to national energy goals.


DoD is the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, accounting for approximately 1% of national demand. In FY11, that added up to a $20 billion bill, with 75% (approximately $15 billion) going to support military operations. Indeed, a steady and reliable supply of energy is essential to every military capability and every mission, and for today’s U.S. forces, that means a steady and reliable supply of petroleum fuels. Petroleum is the fuel of choice for military operations because of its high energy density, fungibility, and global availability. At the same time, DoD’s high demand for petroleum, given its volume, weight, and geostrategic constraints, is raising costs and risks for U.S. forces.

Until the FY 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which called on DoD to establish the OEPP, “operational energy” was not a commonly used term at DoD. The Act defined operational energy as the energy required to train, move, and sustain military operations.

The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and FY 2011 NDAA augmented this definition, noting that defense energy security means having “assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.”

While the term “operational energy” may be new to U.S. armed forces, the concept is not new. From the extraordinary WWII-era Red Hill fuel storage facility in Hawaii to today’s Northern Distribution Network in Central Asia, energy security has long been a priority for American military operations. Today’s conflicts have brought new challenges to military energy security given our distributed operations and increased energy demand – mostly for liquid fuel, but also for batteries.

Today, U.S. forces in Afghanistan are consuming about 1.8 million gallons of fuel every day, which is conveyed over poor and sometimes contested roads. The Army and Marine Corps have documented thousands of casualties related to fuel movements in Afghanistan and Iraq, with U.S. Transportation Command tracking a thousand attacks on logistics convoys in Afghanistan alone last year. U.S. forces are fully capable of protecting these supply lines, but the opportunity cost in lives, resources, and diverted combat force at the tactical level is higher than it should be.

Going forward, the 2012 Department of Defense Strategic Guidance calls for a military force that is “agile, flexible, and ready for the full range of contingencies,” one that is prepared and postured for a complex, global security environment. This will require new and diverse capabilities and with the current trends in major acquisitions–a large and growing supply of fuel. In an era of precision weapons, asymmetric threats, and area denial strategies, the volume of that energy requirement will continue to impose tactical, operational, and strategic challenges.

At the same time, there will be geostrategic challenges for DoD’s energy supplies, particularly when it comes to petroleum. Worldwide demand for petroleum continues to rise, even as supplies are concentrating into fewer nations. As long as the United States depends on oil, the price we all pay at the pump will be driven by a volatile global market. For DoD, that means unpredictable fuel bills that crowd out other investment – every dollar hike in the price of oil per barrel raises our bill by $130 million.

More to the point, DoD must take into account the destabilizing effects of global energy wealth and poverty, the resource competition resulting from rising demand in growing economies, and with 89% of oil exports moving by sea, the need to secure the global commons. The President’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future seeks to change that calculus by taking steps to stabilize today’s energy economy while investing in the innovation that will allow us to displace the primacy of oil in our national and military energy security.


In June of 2011, General Petraeus released a memo to U.S. Forces in Afghanistan calling for better management of operational energy, which he called the “lifeblood” of warfighting capabilities.

In December of 2011, General Allen renewed General Petraeus’s call for action, equating operational energy to operational capability in a follow-up memo. General Allen’s memo highlighted the nature of the challenge, noting: “Operational Energy in the battlespace is about improving combat effectiveness. It’s about increasing our forces’ endurance, being more lethal, and reducing the number of men and women risking their lives moving fuel.

OEPP is committed to achieving the vision of these leaders. We have made good progress this past year and have aggressive goals for the way ahead. Ultimately, our intention is to successfully integrate operational energy considerations into existing policies, plans, programs and processes. This type of large-scale institutional change will require considerable time, effort, and persistence, so I deeply appreciate the Congress’s continued support for the mission and the Office of Operational Energy Plans and Programs.” (pdf)

Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding Plan

Fiscal Years (FY) 2013-2042  Report date March 2012
Air Refueling Inventories & Funding FY 2013-2022 (This will be phased out with LENR – $9 Billion)
  • 2012 Air Refueling Aviation Inventory
  • Air Force – 438 Aircraft  (KC-10, KC-135, KC-46)
  • Navy – 78 Aircraft (KC-130)
The chart (on page 19) depicts air refueling aviation inventory and funding projections over FY2013 – 2022 broken out by military department.  In aggregate, the Air Refueling inventory will increase by one percent over the FY2013 – 2022 period.
(ed. note:  $9 billion is allocated over a period of 9 years in order to maintain this fleet level.)
Details on Air Force and DoN Air Refueling aviation plans are outlined in the following paragraphs.
Department of the Air Force. As the DoD places greater emphasis on operations in other theaters like the Asia-Pacific, Air Force refueling aircraft continue their vital, daily role of extending the range and persistence of almost all other aircraft of the Joint force.  The Air Force remains committed to fully funding the acquisition of the new KC-46 tanker, while also resourcing critical modernization programs for the legacy KC-10 and KC-135 fleets, assuring crucial air refueling capacity and capability for decades to come.  The aerial refueling fleet is sized to meet the Combatant Commander requirements and revised demands of the strategic guidance.  The Air Force will retire 20 KC-135 aircraft over the FYDP. As the Air Force’s fleet of tanker aircraft ages, new tankers will be needed to provide in-flight refueling support.
The Air Force has begun recapitalizing the tanker fleet with fully funded plans to develop and procure 83 KC-46A tankers by 2022.  The KC-46A fleet will reach its planned size of 179 aircraft in 2029; later tanker procurement will be the result of a future contract award. The KC-46A will be able to refuel aircraft in flight and can be air refueled by other aircraft to allow continuous overhead fuel management across the battlespace. Additionally, the capability to transfer fuel to either receptacle or probe-equipped receivers without reconfiguration will enhance the capability and flexibility of the tanker fleet.
Department of the Navy.  The Marine Corps will continue procuring the KC-130J in the near term, expanding its inventory of this aircraft, which has proven its combat effectiveness and reliability in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Capable of employment in intratheater lift, assault support, persistent ISR, and aerial refueling missions, the KC-130J will replace aging KC-130T models. The Navy will incorporate carrier based organic tanking capability requirements into future aircraft studies, and will consider multiple options for future carrier-based tanker assets. (pdf)


Military Sealift Command – Combat Logistics Force

Fifteen fleet replenishment oilers, the largest subset of Combat Logistics Force ships, provide fuel to deployed Navy ships at sea, as well as to their assigned aircraft. Oilers and the ships they refuel sail side by side as fuel hoses are extended across guide wires. Underway replenishment of fuel dramatically extends the time a Navy battle group can remain at sea. MSC has an annual operating budget of approximately $3 billion. (link)

(Up to $1.5 billion of the  operating budget for Combat Logistics Force may be eliminated by LENR power.)

An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan

Combat Logistics and Support Ships (Oilers) In its 2013 plan, the Navy envisions buying 46 logistics and support ships in the next three decades—19 fewer than in the 2012 plan, or a decrease of about 30 percent. Those planned purchases include 1 joint high-speed vessel in 2013, 10 replacement JHSVs in the 2030s, and 17 new oilers (See page 5) over the 30-year period (the latter provide fuel and a few other supplies to ships at sea). Oilers cost .5 to .7 billion dollars per ship. (page 17- table 3) (pdf)

($11.9 billion in shipbuilding expenses eliminated by LENR power.)

$29.5 Billion requested by DoE; $0 for cold fusion

DoE 2012 Budget Highlights Cover
DoE Budget Lowlights?

The Department of Energy DoE released their FY2012 Congressional Budget Request Budget Highlights. download .pdf

“The Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request is $29.5 billion, an 11.8 percent or $3.1 billion increase from FY 2010 current appropriation levels.”

“The central theme of this year’s budget in SC [Office of Science] is research in new technologies for a clean energy future that address competing demands on our environment,” the document states.

In FY 2012, the [SC] Department requests $5.4 billion, an increase of 9.1 percent over the FY 2010 current appropriation, to invest in basic research. The FY 2012 request supports the President’s Strategy for American Innovation, and is consistent with the goal of doubling funding at key basic research agencies, including the Office of Science. The FY 2012 Office of Science budget request supports the following objectives from the Strategy, including:
— Unleash a clean energy revolution
— Strengthen and broaden American leadership in fundamental research
— Develop an advanced information technology ecosystem
— Educate the next generation with 21st century skills and create a world-class workforce.

Program Office Highlights DoE FY2012 Budget Request page 7

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is one of many DoE offices that claim to be “Investing in Breakthrough Technology and a Clean Energy Future.” Their FY 2012 budget request for $3.2 billion is “aimed at accelerating innovation and change in the Nation’s energy economy.” This includes programs that with meet with the President’s goals of “investing in the next generation of clean energy technologies“, among other things.

But the bulk of these requested monies will fund traditional alternative energies that have been in development, and funded, for decades:

The FY 2012 budget request continues to work to transform the Nation’s energy infrastructure by investing over $1,164.9 million in a variety of renewable programs including solar ($457.0 million), wind ($126.9 million), water ($38.5 million), hydrogen ($100.5 million), biomass ($340.5 million), and geothermal ($101.5 million). Research, development, and deployment of these technologies will reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions and revitalize an economy built on the next generation of domestic production.
Program Office Highlights DoE FY2012 Budget Request page 8

The DoE office “devoted exclusively to funding specific highrisk, high payoff, game-changing research and development projects to meet the nation’s long-term energy challenges” will get <more than half-a-billion dollars.

Specifically, ARPA-E‘s budget request, ‘detailed’ on page 23 of the document, totals $650 billion.

Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy: Transformational Research and Development
The FY 2012 budget request includes $550 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), a program launched in FY 2009 that sponsors specific high-risk and high-payoff transformational research and development projects that overcome the long-term technological barriers in the development of energy technologies to meet the Nation’s energy challenges, but that industry will not support at such an early stage.

An additional $100 million in mandatory funding is also proposed from the Wireless Innovation Fund for developing cutting-edge wireless technologies. An essential component of ARPA-E’s culture is an overarching focus on accelerating science to market.

Beyond simply funding transformational research creating revolutionary technologies, ARPA-E is dedicated to the market adoption of those new technologies that will fuel the economy, create new jobs, reduce energy imports, improve energy efficiency, reduce energy-related emissions, and ensure that the U.S. maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.

Nowhere in the budget is found the words low-energy nuclear reactions LENR, lattice-assisted nuclear reactions LANR, chemically-assisted nuclear reactions CANR, condensed matter nuclear science CMNS, nickel-hydrogen exothermic reaction Ni-H, or cold fusion, despite meeting each of the Department of Energy’s Objectives.

DoE Objective – Unleash a clean energy revolution

The revolutionary energy from cold fusion comes from the Fleischmann-Pons “Excess Heat” Effect FPE.

Hydrogen isotopesWhen hydrogen, or its isotope deuterium, is absorbed by a metal like nickel or palladium, large amounts of heat can be generated. This heat can make useful steam, hot, clean water and eventually, electricity.

Hydrogen is an element abundant in water. Access to water means access to fuel, empowering local communities with their own energy sources.

Metals like nickel are plentiful on the Earth, as well as the moon and asteroids. Costs for these and other metals will be low. And this energy is powerful enough to make ecological mining practices economically viable and standard.

Large energy returns of 25 have been published, and energy returns of 400 and higher have been demonstrated. A planned commercial steam generator is the size of a cigarette pack and expected to generate 10 kilowatts of power.

DoE Objective – Strengthen and broaden American leadership in fundamental research

Internal view of a cold fusion cell.
Internal view of an experimental cold fusion cell.

New technologies using the FPE have been developed largely by trial and error, without the benefit of a guiding theory. Basic research is sorely needed to define what the parameters for successful, and maximal, output of energy are.

Experiments have yielded multiple effects other than excess heat like transmutation, even in biological organisms, where current research may lead to ridding the world of the stockpile of radioactive waste.

The research possibilities are endless.

DoE Objective – Develop an advanced information technology ecosystem

Few could imagine the way personal computers developed in the 1980s would literally change the way we live as they did. New jobs and new businesses can thrive in a service environment for clean cold fusion energy.

As a decentralized power source, cold fusion energy devices do not need a grid delivery system. Units can be designed stand-alone and portable.

Scalable power sources could be built into even the smallest hand-held devices, providing power for the life of the device, with no need to recharge.

DoE Objective – Educate the next generation with 21st century skills and create a world-class workforce.

Pacific OceanA cold fusion economy means opportunities for training in new energy. Basic research means jobs for young scientists, with the meaningful and exciting work of building a future based on clean and plentiful energy.

Cold fusion meets the objectives, and then some.
What kind of funding would make a difference?

In an earlier interview with James Martinez, longtime researcher based in Washington D.C. David J. Nagel described a 5-year program starting at $20 million a year, ramping up to $40 million annually, an average $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.

$150 million for cold fusion, half-of-one percent of DoE requested budget for 2012.

EarthThe document is filled with phrases like “energy security” and “American leadership in innovation”, visual-space divisions that are relevant no more to an alliance of peoples across this planet who live in an invisible spacetime of digital-satellite-wireless electromagnetic resonance, and who realize the need for a new arrangement for living on Earth.

Creating a new economy cannot be done by the US, or any one nation, alone. There is a new world to create, one that requires participation and cooperation from people united on every continent.

How will this move forward?

Within the context of maplines, this scenario was posited by Kiva Labs cold fusion researcher Dr. Edmund Storms, way back in 2010:

“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.”
Edmund Storms Why is cold fusion rejected?

Perusing the DoE budget request is like forensics on a phantom limb, gone but not forgotten: there will be no federal funding for this field of new energy anytime soon.

But thank you Mr. Sidney Kimmel!

News like “Billionaire helps fund MU energy research” from the Columbia Daily Tribune is welcome, and desperately needed.

Cold Fusion Now!

Related Links

Billionaire helps fund MU energy research by Janese Silvey Columbia Daily Tribune

Department of Energy Budget and Performance

ARPA-E answers questions about fulfilling mission by Ruby Carat February 9, 2012

Letters to Congressional Energy Sub-committees repeat hearings request by Ruby Carat November 13, 2011

David J. Nagel on Ca$h Flow: A Reasoned Approach to Funding with James Martinez by Ruby Carat August 24, 2010

Why is cold fusion rejected? by Edmund Storms July 20, 2010

Robert Duncan interview on Cash-Flow: “Public investment means public ownership.” with James Martinez by Ruby Carat February 6, 2011

ARPA-E answers questions about fullfilling mission

The House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing on January 24, 2012 to review the efforts of the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), a Department of Energy (DOE) agency tasked with ‘funding cutting-edge energy research “in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.”’

According to the Subcommittee press release, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Energy Inspector General’s (IG) office both issued reports that found ARPA-E funding practices and procedures appearing to veer from this mission.

In particular, the GAO’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Could Benefit from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding reported that

12 of the 18 companies it identified as having received private sector funding prior to their ARPA-E award planned to use ARPA-E funding to either advance or accelerate prior-funded work. Further, Chairman Broun noted, “Similarly, a review of GAO work papers and publicly available information indicates numerous instances of overlap and duplication between ARPA-E and both public and private sector funding.”

In addition, DOE’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) released its own audit in August 2011 that focused on “whether ARPA-E implemented safeguards necessary to achieve its goals and objectives and to effectively deploy associated Recovery Act resources.”

Two of the three awards examined in detail by the IG had questionable costs of $280,387. Included among these costs were “meetings with bankers to raise capital” and a “fee to appear on a local television show.” Despite concerns regarding these uses of taxpayer dollars, the DOE IG noted in its report that such activities were cited as an allowable cost by ARPA-E under its Technology Transfer and Outreach policy.

ARPA-E, DOE IG, and GAO each testified.

Testifying were Dr. Arun Majumdar, Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, U.S., Gregory Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy and Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, Energy and Science Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Roscoe Bartlett
Roscoe Bartlett
Dana Rohrabacher
Dana Rohrabacher

This particular Sub-committee has members such as Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, who has championed the Peak Oil issue in the House for years, though to deaf ears, and Dana Rohrabacher, who spoke out in support of Drs. Fleischmann and Ponstwenty-three years ago.

The Chairman of the Subcommittee, Paul Broun said in his statement that

“while it is clear many ARPA-E projects are pursuing high-quality, potentially transformative research that is too risky for private investment, reviews of GAO work papers and publicly available information reveal many exceptions to this practice, and raise questions regarding ARPA-E’s commitment to ‘carefully structure its projects to avoid any overlap with public and private sources of funding.’”

Specifically, the reports detail information showing that:

Numerous awardees indicated to GAO they would use ARPA-E funding to accelerate work they were already pursuing.

Numerous awardees’ proposals overlap and even duplicate efforts supported elsewhere in DOE and other Federal agencies.

The Administration touted ARPA-E awardees that received private sector funding after their ARPA-E award as proof that ARPA-E is working and successful; however, ten of these eleven recipients had also received significant private sector funding prior to receiving their award, raising questions regarding the degree to which the ARPA-E award itself was the driver of the follow-on funding.

Of the 44 identified small- and medium-size companies that received ARPA-E awards, a review of shows that 26, or 59 percent, of these companies received other funding from the Federal government.

Over 60 percent of proposals funded by ARPA-E sought to advance technology to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 and beyond—the late stage technology demonstration and system commissioning and operation that is regularly supported by the private sector.

ARPA-E’s response, included in the GAO report, rationalized the actions.

ARPA-E response

The full Staff Report to Chairman Broun’s statement HERE
The GAO’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Could Benefit from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding report is available HERE
The DOE IG’s Audit report is available HERE

The IG report states “The goals of ARPA-E are to enhance domestic economic security through the development of energy technologies and to ensure that the United States maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.”

The small amount of federal funding for cold fusion research has come largely from Department of Defense agencies. Civilian funding would come from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E office, but so far they have refused to even acknowledge the two-decades long body of science, violating their stated mission.

At this point, it appears private sector funding will carry the development of this revolutionary new energy technology into the future – only after the first steps in commercial products begin appear on the market. Till then, the small, self-funded companies will continue to struggle in their effort to bring forth the answer to many of our energy problems in the form of real, usable generators.

And at that point, the DOE will realize they’ve been playing in Bonanzaland instead of the Space Age.

Cold Fusion Now!

Related Links

Members Question Oversight and Administration of ARPA-E House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Press Release January 24, 2012

Letters to Congressional Sub-committees repeat hearings request by Ruby Carat November 13, 2011

Letter to the Secretary of Energy and others by Ruby Carat October 14, 2010

Letter to ARPA-E by Ruby Carat August 17, 2010 – one of our earliest efforts at contacting DOE!

“Suburbia lives imaginatively in Bonanza-land.” — Marshall McLuhan The Man, His Message CBC Archives

Contact the Committee on Science, Space and Technology Sub-Committee on Investigations and Oversight
Thank them for supporting new energy research
— and to put LENR funding at a priority.

Contact Representative Bartlett
Contact Representative Rohrabacher