An Open Letter to the IPCC — Cold Fusion is Fossil Fuel Alternative

The following open letter to the Third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC WG III), which is due to report findings in Berlin later this month, has been submitted by ECW reader Gordon Docherty, who urges other cold fusion supporters to also contact the IPPC.


As the IPCC’s Working Group II  have now reported, we live in an era of man-made climate change, with the release of Carbon Dioxide over the last 150 years being one of the prime culprits for global warming.  So, will fossil fuels melt the global economy?

They are already destroying it, and not just in terms of global warming.  Sadly, the current status quo with fossil fuel usage is not just about energy but about power.

Yet, there are alternatives, and many more than the politicians want to admit to.

Now, it’s easy to bash down Wind, Wave and Solar (cost, continuity of supply and damage to the environment being the usual arguments) and they do have their limitations – including the geopolitical ones of ownership of Supply (Building a power array in the Sahara might look appealing, but it would be in politically unstable countries – and the desert is a harsh and dirty environment, especially for solar panels). Still, Wind, Wave, Solar are viable up to a point.

There is also Hydro, but that, too, has its own problems.

So, it is time to spread the argument to look at what else is (or soon will be) “out there” – an energy source that will work anywhere, anyplace, anytime, and not be subject to the instabilities and whims of despotic regimes, with a view to eliminating fossil reserves as fuels altogether – after all, the chemical industry needs fossil reserves for making things, like medicines, plastics, high-tech materials, fertilizers, so why burn them?

Now, there is nuclear, but that produces long-lived radioactive waste, something that has to date somewhat limited its usefulness.  This, however, is where we now need to be brave, as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been granted a patent by the European Patent Office for a “Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method” that, as the introduction to the patent states, will allow for the transformation of long-lived radioactive waste into short-lived radioactive nuclides or stable nuclides and the transmutation of abundant elements into rare earth elements (the patent application was filed in 2001, but was only finally granted on December 3 2013: the inventors are listed as Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh and Mitsuru Sakano with the applicant being Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.)

The implications of this are enormous as it is a process to clean-up fissile material, reducing it to very short half-life waste of the order of a decade or so (from thousands of years).  Much of the waste in Sellafield has already been there 20 years or more, so this is good news for dealing with a problem we already have.

The best bit is yet to come, however, as the process involved is a metal deuteride / metal hydride process – the same basis as LENR / CMNS and similar developments.

To understand why the best bit is yet to come, it is necessary to look back twenty five years: on March 23rd 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced to the world their discovery of a new form of energy, one that quickly became known as Cold Fusion. The world reacted with surprise, scepticism and, ultimately, derision, as “famous names” in science sought to replicate the success. Unfortunately for the world, these famous names, in their haste to grab the crown, failed in their attempts. At the time, it was claimed Pons and Fleischmann had been mistaken, that there was no effect or that worse they were charlatans and frauds. Cold fusion disappeared as quickly as it had come. Those whose livelihoods and government grants depended on maintaining the status quo in energy and energy research breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Now, however, twenty-five years on, the world faces a perfect storm as climate change, energy security, energy demand, demand for water and demand on scarce resources combine to threaten not just our way of life but the stability of the planet’s various eco-systems – and our very survival. The need for a safe, secure, clean, inexpensive, plentiful, reliable supply of energy has never been more pressing, yet the options on the table remain, after 25 years, oil, coal, gas and fission (namely, uranium), often from politically unstable regions of the world, with some renewables: even the renewables are coming under pressure, however, as their cost, need for energy storage / augmentation, need for land and green credentials (solar and wind generators in particular requiring materials that despoil the Earth in a big way to extract) all come under fire.

So, is there another way? Twenty five years on, is there nothing that can be done to resurrect the promise of Cold Fusion? According to popular mythology, and the vested powers that be, Cold Fusion is dead. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. In fact, Cold Fusion survived the initial savaging it received at the hands of the “famous names”, albeit in small, out of the way laboratories well off the beaten track. These small laboratories continued to work on – and, more importantly, understand, the work undertaken by Pons and Fleischmann.  This time, through careful replication (the devil is in the details), reflection and adjustment – that is, using proper RE-search techniques – they not only replicated the effects, they enhanced and improved on them: like some long lost secret of the ancients, the secrets of Cold Fusion have been slowly revealing themselves, as dedicated individuals have searched, searched and searched again (the origin of the word research: RE-search) by trial and error to find out what worked and what did not.  As a result of this work, a whole new set of research avenues into “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)”, “Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR)”, “Controlled Electron Capture Reaction (CECR)”, Transmutation, Cold Fusion and Hydrino formation, all under the umbrella of “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS)” have opened up.  The result has been the development of competing theories and models that, whilst appearing superficially different, share many of the same effects and are indeed now being seen as different combinations of these same effects in different proportions. Most interestingly, from the initial work of Pons and Fleischmann (which, by their own admission, they partly misunderstood at the time) where only a small amount of excess power was sporadically detected, reliable excess power production into the kilowatts and beyond is now being seen.

So, after twenty five years, and facing the perfect storm, is it not time to open our minds and revisit the field of Cold Fusion in its many new forms of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Controlled Electron Capture Reaction (CECR), Transmutation and Hydrino formation? If you can suspend the prejudice that has surrounded this area of research for the last twenty five years, you may be pleasantly surprised with what you find – as well as truly dismayed at the visceral hate that was wrongly directed toward Fleischmann and Pons twenty five years ago, a hate whose consequences we are facing today as highlighted all-too-graphically in the IPCC’s report. Never before has humanity been faced with such a stark choice of change or die.

The question now to ask is not “why are we looking into this” but “why are we as individuals, societies, states and the whole world NOT looking into this?”: it took the Manhattan project (without computers), 7 years to deliver a “working” device, with the main push being from 1942 to 1945 – only three years.

In the case of metal deuterides / metal hydrides, a remarkable subset of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) research), we already have working systems that are currently being worked on:

Seventy years ago, the Allies invested much effort into generating what were, in the end, weapons of Mass Destruction, weapons that have led to a world of fear for the last 70 years.  So, why are those some countries, now rebranded as “the West”, not investing heavily in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) research and the production of practical, peaceful energy generators that will usher in a golden age and, quite literally, deliver us from evil?

The IPCC report just underlies the need for bringing on new energy sources NOW – with so much energy, it would even be possible to convert the CO2 + H2O back into hydrocarbons + oxygen, to provide feedstock to the chemical industry.

With new capabilities come new possibilities – and a new golden age.

Or, we can just keep going along the path we are going – but then it must now be understood that this path, and all that the consequences that flow from it, is being taken deliberately and in cold blood.

Finally, in case you are in any doubts about the deception that has been perpetrated on the world over the last 25 years, just see:

And then look to some recent events that show just why it is time to look again :

I believe, after reading this, you will be in no doubt that there is something very wrong with the picture being presented, and that we are not helpless in the face of adversity, but actually have within our reach a way to move the world toward a golden future – if only we have the courage to stand up and be counted against the forces of evil that will otherwise push us toward our own doom.

Yours faithfully,

Gordon Docherty B.Sc. M.Sc. MBA MBCS MCMI

  • steve high

    My idea: if it were possible to identify a “stakeholder” with nothing to lose and everything to gain from the development of LENR, then trying to excite the interest of such a party, and encouraging such a party to make their interest public, could potentially create a “tipping point” that would help bring LENR into public awareness. I realize that it is naive to believe that any party with public credentials to maintain would have “nothing to lose” by becoming an LENR supporter, given the history of cold fusion as a defamed topic. Still, my interested alighted on the produce growers in California who are right now facing a devastating drought, locked in a struggle with the urban communties for access to ever-diminishing water resources. They are surely aware of geohistorical evidence that central California has had in the past droughts of this magnitude that have persisted even for a hundred years.There is no telling when and if the current drought will resolve itself.
    Perhaps unlike the “greens”, I would expect the Central Valley growers to be more friendly towards a technological solution such as low cost desalinization. I have read often that LENR and low cost desalinization would be a very good fit. The water would not have to be pumped over the Pacific mountain range. Fresh water produced this way would be used to meet the needs of the coastal cities, sparing Sierran water for use by the growers.
    So, I think it is possible that the Central Valley growers are feeling sufficiently stressed by the existential threat posed by this protracted drought, that they might be willing to take a chance and at least honestly evaluate an “outside the box” solution to their dilemma. With that in mind I have been sending emails to the science and technology person at the Western Growers Association, inviting an interest in LENR development. The Western Growers Association appears to be a fairly large group with thirty or more employees. Not surprisingly my emails have not been answered but I’m not giving up yet. I am anticipating some important news from the Rossi group in the near future, and when that arrives I will be passing that information along to the Western Growers.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • GreenWin

    Adam Weinstein jogs after ambulances better than a personal injury attorney.

  • GreenWin

    Citibank, helps pave the way to de-centralization of energy production. This pretty well ends the role of coal, oil, and fission in western energy production. With LENR around the corner, investors should be cautious about big wind. Wind farms will become stranded assets along with nukes and coal operations – they are environmental & security hazards compared to distributed generation.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe this article is even better to send it to IPCC:

  • Alain Samoun

    I found this article quite interesting and related to Gordon’s letter:
    Carbon Delirium
    The Last Stage of Fossil-Fuel Addiction and Its Hazardous Impact on American Foreign Policy

  • theBuckWheat

    A well written but total waste of time. As with all things liberal (er, now “progressive”), the issue is far more about the goal of the complaint than than the complaint itself. Anything that disproves the complaint is ignored, or even considered “hateful”. Notice that people who do not accept the dire predictions are now being threatened with jail or murder. The goal of Global LukeWarmists has always been to increase government control over people’s lives.

    There will be even less interest in LENR than in conventional nuclear power as an answer to so-called “Climate Change”. (hey: climate is always changing. There would be something wrong if it didn’t. See: previous ice age.)

  • Ophelia Rump

    Well written! The closing bit about forces of evil was a touch of dramatic flair, but the overall tenor was staid, studied and highly respectable.

    • Obvious

      It must be a new fad to end an essay with an extraneous reference to forces of evil or satan.

  • Sandy
  • Iggy Dalrymple

    “It’s become a religion, and religions do not worry too much about facts.”
    – James Lovelock, the godfather of the Gaia hypothesis (speaking about environmentalism).

    • GreenWin

      “It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number
      of elites, including: Politicians, who want to make it seem as though
      they’re saving the world; environmentalists, who want to raise money and
      get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy;
      media, for sensationalism; universities and professors for grants. You
      can’t hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has
      something to do with climate change. It is a kind of nasty combination
      of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one.”
      Patrick Moore, Co-Founder, GreenPeace

      • Alain Samoun

        According to Greenpeace, Moore is not a co-founder.
        Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry.
        Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.

        • AlainCo

          it is their way to say this man is competent and independent mind…
          a compliment.

          like when a scientologist says you are open mind (to avoid in their language, because you are thinking alone)

          • Chris the 2nd

            They had no problem calling Patrick Moore a Co-Founder on their website until he turned “heretic”. They are just rewriting inconvenient history.

            That organisation is a shadow of what it was intended to be.

          • Alain Samoun

            In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Patrick Moore as its co-chairs.
            This show effectively where the ‘competences’ of Moore are: An hired gun for the nuclear fission industry.
            C’est bien les compétences et l’indépendance dont vous parlez n’est-ce pas?

  • georgehants

    Would like to record how gratifying it is to me personally to have Gordon Docherty, a qualified scientist on page writing a clear Honest, Truthful comment.
    A very rare event in a profession that has fallen into terrible disrespect.
    If many more scientists would follow this example of Truth in science then many other problems in the World could be solved.
    It would then just be left to remove the corruption and incompetence of politics and capitalism that in many areas, not just Cold Fusion, are causing untold suffering to the World’s citizens.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    We should be able to send an email to the IPCC, to governments stressing the importance of this letter. The more the better.
    The way Greenpeace rises people to sign its campaigns.
    If there was a link I know I would sign it.

  • Warthog

    This needs one minor correction. At least one of the “famous names” that said that LENR was not feasible was MIT. In fact, the MIT Pons/Fleischmann experiment did, in fact, replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s result (generated excess heat without accompanying fatal radiation). But, when the publication appeared, “someone” associated with that effort committed plain old science fraud and CHANGED THE REPORTED DATA to show a null result. This fraud was discovered and made public by Eugene Mallove. He also reported the incident to the MIT administrative bureaucracy….which did precisely nothing to correct the fraud and thus perpetuated it.

  • GreenWin

    This is a very good “White Paper” serving to introduce governments and industry to the positive developments in LENR. Thank you for your good work Gordon. But the IPCC is a toothless organization on the brink of extinction – along with electric utilities and the grid. The UN’s own poll demonstrates global disinterest in “climate.”

    “The results of the poll to date are that worldwide, we people of the world view the fight against climate change as the least important of 16 issues suggested by the UN.”

    It is nice to think the UN could play a role in delivering New Fire to the two billion people on Earth without access to electricity. But they lack leadership and incentive. More likely the steady commercialization of LENR will force governments to take action. Governments will wake up when their most powerful lobbies yell. That’s happening in the US and EU as giant fossil/fission utilities enter a Death Spiral due to Distributed Generation.

  • georgehants

    Good to see another scientist fighting the main-line incompetence to recognise Cold Fusion.
    As any good scientist, I am happy to allow that the Earth is warming or equally cooling toward a new ice-age.
    As our climate is always in the realm of chaos theory, long and short term changes caused by a thousand different and unmeasurable parameters, when combined then, any forecast looking forward one hundred years or even one year is useful only as a guide to a possibility and has no definite connection to a reality.
    If they had published a guide for temperatures falling at the same, then it would have made them look more competent.
    As the only worthwhile measure of warming is thermometers covering the globe, or a worldwide sea-level rise then it is easy to determine if correctly analysed, the True situation of any warming or cooling over the period where sufficient thermometers or tide hight markers have been placed in wide covering positions.
    Everything else is guesswork and “opinion” and quite irrelevant and useless.
    If it were found that it is warming and something had to be done to remove CO2 then Cold Fusion is the answer and one would think these people would be screaming for funds and manpower to develop the technology.
    When the CO is removed we could immediately start falling into an unstoppable ice-age.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Well done, Gordon, although I think that your letter comes too early. If you tell politicians that there is a new, clean and cheap source of energy, they will ask you at best where and when the corresponding technology can be ordered, and how reliable it is. At the moment, there is not even a single demonstration plant which is accessible to the public. No responsible person would make strategic decisions on such a basis. We’ll have to wait for the plants, everything else will hopefully follow.

  • Gerard McEk

    The initiative is perfect, the story is good but too lengthy for those busy people with their eyes in the sky. Maybe a slogan is a better way to catch the eye?
    How do you think about: Stop overheating the world, use Cold Fusion!

    • malkom700

      Proponents of AGW and LENR have a common destiny that are ignored by the so-called science. At least to date, since in the issue of AGW has been radical change.

  • Christopher Calder

    The 2014 IPCC report is largely religion, not science. They are not using the scientific method to find results. They have a government paid for agenda and they construct “evidence” to fit that agenda. The results are predetermined by the government mandate and cash.

    IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted: “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”

    Google *Moderating Climate Change Hysteria* for my view on “Climate Change”.

    • Chris the 2nd

      My view is very simple. It happens, and will continue to happen positively or negatively either way. Deal with it. (mitigate)

  • Bernie777

    Gordon Docherty……Good letter, thanks. That would be novel for the IPPC, to actually propose a remedy for climate change.

    • Chris the 2nd

      I wouldn’t trust a remedy from someone who doesn’t understand the problem to be honest

  • Bruce Williams

    A good letter Gordon, thanks for your time in composing this. Unfortunately I think Chris may be right……………

  • Mr. Moho

    Regardless of the contents of this open letter, which I don’t 100% approve, I think you should have waited first for undeniable proof of working and useful LENR devices that anybody (or pretty much anybody, or better yet, prominent national labs/agencies) could test/verify/validate. Much of the AGW-proponent side could be defined as the epitome of groupthink, anyway. What kind of reply would you expect when the mainstream scientific opinion is that LENR/cold fusion are pseudoscience? Also, bar a few exceptions many leading environmentalists would also vehemently oppose a cheap and plentiful new energy source, even if it’s clean, as it would lead to the Malthusian catastrophe / peak of everything.

    On the other hand when that will happen, the AGW-skeptic side would most likely support it in full force.

    • Gordon Docherty

      AGW, of course, has also been seen by many as pseudo-science (and still is). There is always a risk in everything future-oriented (unlike hind-site, unfortunately none of us has the gift of 100% foresight), and I think the risk of being right and coming up with a working solution (the upside risk) far outweighs any risk of looking dumb (the downside risk). To quote Corinthians 3:19: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” – or, put another way, in trying to look wise, the wise often end up looking dumb. One thing I’ve learned in life, the more I know, the more I know how little I know…

      • Mr. Moho

        AGW, of course, has also been seen by many as pseudo-science (and still is)…

        However, truth is that it’s those who question AGW who are politically, academically and socially marginalized. There clearly are many more people who believe that AGW is valid science than the opposite.

        The same cannot be said for the LENR/cold fusion field and its supporters. They get the same “denier” treatment.

  • Chris the 2nd

    not sure it’s a good idea to plaster your address on the internet Gordon ;), but good letter.

    You will probably be ignored unfortunately.