The E-Cat as a Solution for Pro-Nuclear Environmentalists

Below is a letter released today that has been written by four top climate scientists who are very concerned about the impact that climate change could have upon the planet, urging policy influencers to embrace nuclear power as a way to deal with the issue of ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course the letter does not mention LENR technology, but to my mind, the E-Cat fits the bill of ‘advanced nuclear power’ that is mentioned in the letter. I would hope and expect that the vast advantages that the E-Cat has over conventional nuclear power would make it an energy technology that environmentalists would embrace with open arms and celebrations. It is more many of them could realistically hope for. The E-Cat has none of the safety hazards that causes many environmentalists to reject nuclear fission technology as a green alternative — and should not be a controversial solution.

So far, however, there has been little advocacy from prominent environmentalists for LENR as a green solution to our energy problems. Surely that will change when the E-Cat is finally launched into the marketplace.

Here’s the full text of the letter (with my own emphasis, trying to show how well the E-Cat  — or similar — would meet their needs.)

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

We understand that today’s nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.

We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

  • Rene

    This is all wonderful, unicorns and rainbows, but until LENR and especially Rossi’s ECAT shows up generating power outside of carefully controlled demo/experiments, any suggestions about discussing how LENR will ‘save the world, help with climate, heat homes’ is premature and highly speculative. No organizations will take any such suggestions seriously until there is proof positive *outside* of stakeholders. I still remain positive about the possibility of a strong LENR power generator, but being positive has to tempered by lack of solid proof.

    • GreenWin

      Organizations like DARPA, Mitsubishi Heavy, NASA LaRC, Toyota, SPAWAR, University Missouri, Royal Inst. Technology Stockholm, National Instruments, US Navy, University Uppsala, STMicro, NNSA, Boeing Research, Bologna University, Swedish Energy R&D Elforsk, Ansaldo Energia, University Purdue etc. etc. of course.

  • HHiram

    LENR would be wonderful, if concrete testable evidence to support its reality does emerge. I imagine that it will be embraced across the political spectrum.

    As a scientist, I can only express my deepest dismay whenever I see comment threads like this in which a handful of shrill anti-science and climate denialist voices dominate the discussion with their staggeringly ignorant claims about the state of climate science, their utter lack of understanding of scientific method and practice, and their comically biased cherry picking of “evidence” to support their pre-conceived narratives.

    • GreenWin

      Interestingly, Bill Nye “the science guy” follows the very same scripting HH.

  • jousterusa

    The likelihood of LENR overcoming nuclear power’s lead is small, especially given the secrecy and confusion surrounduing the E-Cat. To me, it appears that the E-Cat will never emerge from obscurity so long as Rossi’s “partner” pulls the strings, which may have been their intention all along.

    • GreenWin

      What secrecy? What confusion? There is a public study conducted by 15 named scientists, engineers and technicians confirming E-Cat works just as Dr. Rossi claims. Unhappily for the nuke Village:

      “This [nuclear power] is not a future technology. It’s an old technology, and it served a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course… The industry is going away.” Greg Jaczko fmr Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

  • theBuckWheat

    As with all things liberal, the thing they say or object to is not the real focus. If coal is bad and we must have solar, and if nuclear is bad and we must have wind, when someone wants to build a solar plant in a bare desert, but we cannot permit construction because the power line will disturb some “vital” habitat, then what is the real objective? I am convinced it is to suppress human prosperity and economic opportunity.

    As surely as the sun rises, there will be some substantial opposition to LENR use at some point, no matter how many coal-fired power plants that Brillouin steam generators clean up.

  • Hope4dbest

    What I don’t understand is why Rossi doesn’t show to the press one of his 1 MW Ecats. Even if takes years to scale up the technology to supply the world, its mere existance will change the debate forever. Nuclear stations would go the way of the horse buggy.

  • Fortyniner

    Hard to know where to start with this. In a nutshell, it is purest propaganda from a group of ‘climate scientists’ who have been manipulating the facts about climate for many years, and using a host of other dirty tricks in order to further their various purposes. About the best that can be said of this trash is that at least their pro-nuclear agenda is now out in the open, but if I’m honest I would have preferred not to see this kind of nonsense replicated here.

    Hansen was was Algore’s chief advisor and until recently, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies – until even his bosses became embarrassed by his rabid and widely debunked AGW propaganda. He has been guilty of massive data manipulation, a string of misinformation about ‘global warming’, attempts (often successful) to ruin the careers of anyone who contradicts him in public, and has made his anti-human ‘Agenda 21’ leanings completely clear on many occasions. Astronaut and physicist Walter Cunningham has said in reference to Hansen and his cohorts: “In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have abused our public trust.”

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/

    Caldiera (and his crony David Keith) are if anything far more dangerous than Hansen in that these two are the main scientific force behind the stratospheric aerosol injection from jets that has been polluting the skies for two decades in the US, and for a decade elsewhere (‘geoengineering’/’chemtrails’). He is another Agenda 21 proponent and was lead author (propagandist) for the IPCC until 2011 when his work in advising on geoengineering required his full time attention. His name appears on patents that relate to methods of particulate injection from jet engines and he has published a number of papers on the subject. As for others keen to play God with all our futures, the life and health of those subjected to his ‘planetary medicine’ seem to be of little concern for him.

    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ken-caldeira-leading-scientist-in-geo-engineering-technology-is-he-willing-to-kill-you/

    Wigley (close associate of Phil Jones of the infamous U of East Anglia – Climategate and Climategate 2) and Emanuel (MIT – another strident ‘warmist’ – currently under investigation for undisclosed ties to the insurance industry) are lesser players who are long-time supporters of Hansen and lately of Caldiera, and who share the same agendas and methods of achieving them.

    All except Caldiera have been discredited in one way or another, and IMO their utterings are no longer of much importance. Caldiera on the other hand is probably one of the more dangerous individuals currently at large, and his activities in connection with the USAF are seriously damaging the health and life expectancy of everyone. The chances of such individuals having the slightest interest in promoting LENR even though they are almost certainly aware of it, are remote. An actual solution to their artificially generated ‘problems’ is about the last thing they want, as this would negate their real agendas overnight. This will hold true for many entrenched ‘green’-camouflaged individuals and organisations, and we should not expect this sector to play any part in the adoption of cold fusion.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      49er, I have a cyber-friend who is a scientist and former astronaut/candidate who agrees with your assessment of NASA’s GW data manipulation.

      I had a retired university biochemist professor (late cyber-pal) that felt the same way.

      The one and only scientist friend that I know that buys into manmade GW is
      an inside-the-beltway govt-employee that works for a mostly useless agency.

      • Fortyniner

        It does look like ‘belief’ in AGW amongst scientists often seems to depend to some extent on which side their bread is buttered. I suppose that if you work for a govt. that pretends to espouse ‘climate change’ for their own purposes, then your job could be at risk if the wrong person overhears you saying it is bunk.

        Unfortunately a decent education doesn’t seem to help people think much for themselves – I am acquainted with a number of secondary school teachers, most of whom accept AGW as unquestioned fact, and happily take the propaganda handouts from the likes of EDF and pass the same nonsense on to the next generation (that includes several science teachers, who really should know better).

        • ecatworld

          Those who are terrified enough of climate change to the extent that they advocate conventional nuclear to solve the problem should surely embrace the E-Cat as a far better solution once it becomes available.

          My main point the the above post is that whether they right or not, climate scientists have huge influence among policy influencers, and if they propose the E-Cat (or similar LENR) as the solution they could help propel it rapidly into the mainstream.

          If they don’t get behind the E-Cat once it is thoroughly vetted, then that’s another issue.

          • Fortyniner

            @Frank

            Call me a cynical old git, but I’m afraid that I have become convinced over years of observation that people like Hansen, Gore, Mann, Caldeira, Keith et al. don’t believe in what they preach any more than I do. They have cornered lucrative niches through deception, and their power bases depend entirely on continued scaremongering, which would not be possible if a genuine clean energy source became widely and cheaply available.

            In the light of what is happening at Fukushima, no-one thinking rationally could advocate building many more nuclear power stations, ergo this is not a rational plea and must serve some other purpose. You give them the benefit of the doubt, but I’m not inclined to do so. As you say, time will tell, and perhaps I may yet be pleasantly surprised.

            • ecatworld

              I know many people who are genuinely concerned of the effects that greenhouse gas emissions will have on the planet and there are millions like them the world over — and they have nothing to gain from keeping the fear going.

              I hope there will be a groundswell of support for the E-Cat from people like them the world over that will lead to its rapid adoption. I am sure there will be resistance from some sectors on various grounds, but i would expect a majority would be in favor of a cheap, clean energy source like the E-Cat.

              • HHiram

                I admire your restraint in tolerating the tinfoil hat nonsense from these climate change deniers. Still, some firmer moderating might be in order. The credibility of LENR is not enhanced by having anti-intellectual, anti-science ignoramuses spouting this sort of nonsense.

                • ecatworld

                  I realize there are people with different views about climate change, and allow respectful views from any perspective on this site, so long as we don’t get too far off topic.

                • Fortyniner

                  If there is no such thing as geoengineering, why is the IPCC urging
                  politicians not to consider stopping ‘solar radiation management’?

                  “While the entire community of academia still pretends not to know about the
                  ongoing reality of global geoengineering, the simple fact that they are
                  now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that
                  the veil is beginning to lift.” Dane Wigington, Geoengineering Watch

                  http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/solar-radiation-management-geoengineering-and-chemtrails/

                  Incidentally, HHiram, I was a researcher in microbial genetics for over a decade and am reasonably familiar with ‘scientific method and practice’ – just in
                  case your abusive and rather overexcited comments are aimed at myself.

                • GreenWin

                  Very interesting how the orthodox old schoolers pronounce themselves “scientists” ad nauseum. IMO, this contributes greatly to “science’s” bad name. SRM looks to be another covert misanthropic venture.

                • Fortyniner

                  Yes – hidden in plain sight by normalising the clearly abnormal. Even when they see it happening in the sky above them, many people have great difficulty confronting the enormity of this abuse, and simply reject or rationalise the evidence of their own eyes (‘normalcy bias’). By venturing some way OT on this forum I am hoping to make a few more people aware of what is happening if they are not already so – although this topic is of course closely linked to the subject matter in hand on this thread.

                  Did I mention I was once a scientist? (appeal to authority).

                • ricwerme

                  You may find that most people you think are “deniers” actually think that the climate does change. All the time. And that the Earth has seen much worse (and not just warmer). The signatories are all strongly wedded to CO2 as being the primary climate driver, but stems back to a period when people didn’t see what else could be involved. In fact, CO2 appears to be blamed for 2X to 3X more warming than it causes and other factors like oceanic oscillations, solar changes, and even cosmic rays and poor quality ground temperature will turn out to explain most of the recent changes. The “pause” in warming over the last 17 years shows no sign of being replaced by increased warming any time soon.

                  Like true scientists, we are skeptical of the claims of these four, everyone else, and even ourselves. It’s just that the better the data, the harder it is to show reducing CO2 emissions will change anything.

          • Buck

            I agree with the direction of your argument.

            One of the strongest points about LENR is that experimental evidence over the last 25 years is that it is a benign form of Nuclear Power. Negative propagandists will hammer on the negative implications of Nuclear Power.

            If Nuclear Power maintains a position of being a viable solution in those meetings where policy is discussed, then the strongest argument against LENR is rendered impotent.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          50 or 60 years ago it was a common theme in movies about primitive cultures that the explorers in pith helmets, knowing when astronomic events (such as solar eclipses) were about to occur, would dupe the natives into thinking that the explorers had supernatural powers.

          I’ve concluded that big elite academia now figures that the populace is sufficiently dumbed down, to pull such shams on the public, and even on narrow-minded scientists.

    • GreenWin

      THANK YOU Fortyniner for this cogent, reasoned rebuke of these four despots claiming to be “scientists.” They are at best misanthropes with scurrilous intent for the human race. In my opinion. 🙂

  • Dzejk

    Climeon Ocean:

    http://www.climeon.com/

  • Christina

    See, the answers will come; we must just have faith in the intelligence God gave us and continue searching for answers until we arrive at a good solution.

    I got the gist of what the scientists are arguing about in the Coments: we know lenr exists, but can we control it in order to make energy for use by humans? My faith in God says that He put it into the physical universe so that we (and whatever other intelligent life He’s got out there) can use it. He just needs our scientists to have enough faith to experiment, fail, and experiment again until a usable end product is found.

    Although I don’t understand the concepts, I am intrigued that you all think that there are multiple ways to produce lenr. WOW.

    I hope lenr is manufactured and sold in such a way that it can help the millions who are starving and subsisting in the 3rd world. And please, please find a way around gifting lenr to 3rd world countries and then having dictators misappropriate it and usurping it for their armies. That seems to have happened a lot in recent decades (probably because transportation is better now than in the horse and buggy days).

    Have a good day and may God bless you.

  • Buck

    It should be noted that Dr. James Hanson was the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This suggests that he is at least somewhat familiar with LENR on account of Dennis Bushnell’s, NASA chief scientist – Langley Research Center, outspoken affirmation of LENR.

    I wonder how he would respond to a direct question about LENR.

    • GreenWin

      Let’s not forget that Hansen is trained as an astronomer not a climate scientist. Trillions of dollars are invested in selling humans on this myth. But the Earth itself refuses to believe: “Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is
      expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

      Next time someone whines about “Ice caps melting…”

      • Buck

        I’ll point to the Nobel Laureates and the highly respected highly honored academicians in the field of physics who emphatically describe LENR as an juvenile error in measurement of energy in and energy out.

        And then, I’ll roll my eyes and say “Go Figure”.

        • Omega Z

          “academicians in the field of physics who emphatically describe LENR as an juvenile error in measurement of energy in and energy out.”

          If this were a press conference,
          I would say now that your Admitting Your Juvenile Error’s
          Does that mean you now admit that LENR is Real? 🙂

          • Buck

            But, this isn’t a press conference.

            • Fortyniner

              It’s not that black and white. Of course the extraction, transport and use of fossil fuels has had deleterious effects on the ecosystem, and on humans exposed to the waste products of combustion. I don’t think that anyone would argue otherwise, nor advocate the use of such fuels one minute longer than they remain essential, nor stand in the way of cleaner combustion technologies and energy efficiency measures.

              The argument is purely about whether a relatively tiny increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere (from perhaps 300ppm pre-industrial to 380ppm now) could conceivably cause the scary results promulgated by a small cadre of ‘climate scientists’ (most of whom are actually nothing of the sort).

              As soon you look outside the cherry-picked and collusive data sets provided by these people, and their deliberately biased computer simulations, it becomes quite clear that this is not the case. Not only is the evidence for any kind of runaway ‘greenhouse effect’ almost entirely absent, it is apparent that climate is influenced by a host of more important factors, most of which are completely beyond human control or mitigation, except perhaps through the crude and disastrous methods presently being covertly applied (google ‘geoengineering’ or ‘chemtrails’).

              • Buck

                49r, I agree that the situation is not black and white; it is complex on the scale of a globally interdependent system of balancing forces involving both humanity and nature.

                I do disagree though and think that many are driven to extend the use of fossil fuels to the detriment of others . . . they are just a negative externality to their P&L. For example, you only have to look at Big Oil/Gas which pushed through an exemption for Fraking regarding the disclosure of deleterious chemicals in the fraking fluids. Many are very willing to disseminate disinformation for the maintenance of status quo. Just look at Dr. Michael McKubre’s recent interview where he stated the necessity to shift from ‘Sciencing’ LENR to engineering a commercial LENR device.

                Regarding the argument about the impact of a change in C02 concentration, I think it very important to frame the conversation in much longer timeframes and larger swings in concentration because at this point in time, there is very little to suggest that humanity has materially reduced the annual contribution of C02 through the burning of fossil fuels. So, your limit of 380ppm seems unreasonable. One famous graph shows the last 650k years.
                LINK>> http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/PyrotechnicGore.jpg

                Another goes back about 530M years. I think this one describes the inherent complexity of the buffering system within which C02 works.
                LINK>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

                In this material, at least two important points stand out. There is no refutation that C02 is a greenhouse gas with the obvious correlation. Further, the warmer it gets, the higher the global sea level gets due to a reduction in overall quantity of ice.

                To get a sense of the consequences of these two factors, I look at the Neogene period which had a similar C02 level of about 420-450ppm and ended about 2.5M years ago. It is important to note the increase in estimated global water levels. It has been estimated that more than 200-400M people currently live within the impacted/inundated areas.
                LINK>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene
                LINK>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blakey_20moll.jpg

                From my perspective, this raises the question of how to treat these facts ethically. This is appropriate because they speak directly to the harm done to those 200-400M people by 1st world and BRICs nations which burn the majority of the fossil fuels. We have not asked permission to make inhabitable the impacted land nor to force the migration of those impacted. And certainly, we have no intention of paying those costs.

                Personally, I find this an extraordinarily uncomfortable perspective, and this discomfort does not give the right to ignore what stands in plain sight.

                • GreenWin

                  Buck, I link above to a WaPost article detailing the record expansion of the Antarctic sea ice extent for the second year now. Sea level rise is not well documented and as 90% of all ice on Earth resides in the Antarctic – melting ice is not significant.

                • Buck

                  GW, I hear you and have read the piece about Antarctic ice. But, glaciers and arctic ice are also relevant. I have not looked up that information in some time, however my recollection points to large losses for both.

                • Fortyniner

                  @Buck
                  Sorry about the delay responding – I’ve been away from my desktop and my phone is rather a strain on my not-so-young eyes! (Not to mention the tiny keyboard and my somewhat clumsy fingers).

                  I should have defined “anyone” more clearly. I was really talking about observers trying to make sense of the data, rather than those with vested interests attempting to further their own objectives by misrepresenting their actual knowledge of the facts.

                  I don’t fully understand your reference to the neogene period I’m afraid. As you point out, CO2 levels were relatively high – yet the period was characterised by cooler average temperatures than previously, and ended with a period of extensive glaciation. But in any case, as many have observed, upon close examination of temp/CO2 graphs the indications are that C02 levels may *follow* temperature variations, rather than cause them.

                  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

                  I know that some have devised rather convoluted arguments as to why this observation is not relevant, but the observed delay in in the order of several hundreds of years, and I find it hard to interpret this as other than cause and effect – in this case the cause being increased temperature and the effect being elevated levels of CO2.

                  However Im not attempting to blame presently elevated CO2 levels on elevated temperatures a few hundred years ago (although that may be a factor…). Clearly, burning fossil fuels on a large scale does release CO2 over and above other sources such as vulcanism, and other human activities such as deforestation and chemical/radiological poisoning of the oceans that may have significant delayed effects on the CO2 cycle. The questions really are (1) what is the extent of the direct anthropomorphic contribution to atmospheric CO2 and (2) how significant is the CO2 level anyway.

                  The current data seems to indicate that humans may have added about 30% to the total over the last 150 years or so, but people rarely look at what may have gone before this. Some data indicates that CO2 levels may have been much higher than at present even in the very recent past (c.1820) and this may have resulted from a delayed pulse of CO2 that may have followed the anomolous global ‘medieval warm period’ (which was not associated with an increased CO2 level).

                  http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-2000ppm.html

                  http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/24/review-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-was-global-generally-warmer-than-the-present-when-co2-was-safe/

                  We seem to be doing our very best to destroy our own habitat in many ways, including potentially disastrous ‘mitigation’ strategies in response to the CO2 scare, and my own feeling is that we should be looking at these as priorities. I only hope that the present rapidly worsening situation at Fukushima in particular doesn’t render all other concerns irrelevant in the very near future.

                • Buck

                  49r, my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

                  I appreciate your thoughts. I am reaching the point where I recognize that what brings us all together is the promise of LENR and I should focus solely upon that which brings us together in good community. Just as the LENR deniers potentially drive us to distraction, so to for me regarding those who deny humanity’s responsibility for the consequences of our fossil fuel economy. And, I hear this also disturbs you.

                  With this sentiment shared, I think we both can say that we look forward to the commercial introduction of LENR. The world needs a viable substitute of more Fukushima’s.

            • GreenWin

              Buck, geologic scale evidence for GW catastrophe is non-existent as we have hard evidence of 1200+ppm CO2 in Devonian and Cambrian. Recall that Devonian introduced Earth’s first forests. And the Cambrian “explosion” produced astonishing biodiversity across the planet. AGW campaign was intended to 1) reward it’s inventors (carbon trading, climate “science”) 2) restrict energy to tepid renewables wind & solar, and expand “green” fission via nuke cabal.

              • Buck

                GW, see my response to 49r just below.