World Events Highlight Need for New Energy Sources

Recent world news reports highlight the importance of energy in today’s world — and specifically how a clean and abundant energy source like LENR could play a dramatic role in changing the landscape dramatically.

The first area where energy is playing a major role is the Ukraine-Russia crisis, where gas supplies are playing a central role. Russia has raised the price that it is charging Ukraine for natural gas, and Ukraine says it refuses to pay those rates. Without payment, Russia will likely cut off supplies to Ukraine — and this could affect Europe significantly, as much Russian gas is piped to Europe via pipelines running through Ukraine.

There is discussion in Europe now whether the gas flow to Ukrainian pipelines can be reversed so that Ukraine can be supplied with gas from European countries rather than Russia. Russia has made assurances that gas supplies to its European customers will not be affected.

The second major news event comes from the United Nations, where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new report which calls for the end of reliance on carbon-producing energy sources to prevent world temperatures from climbing by 2 C by the end of this century. The IPPC recommends massive increases in the use of carbon-free energy production technologies, like solar, wind, and nuclear fission to reach their goals.

In both cases cited here, viable LENR would have a major impact. Many countries are obviously uncomfortable relying on non-domestic sources of energy, especially when political and economic relations with countries supplying their energy are precarious. On the other hand, countries like Russia, whose economy is largely dependent on petroleum sales, could find their influence and prosperity significantly diminished if LENR was implemented on a large scale among countries that buy their energy products.

At the United Nations, it seems that LENR is not even a blip on the IPCC’s radar — yet it could be a technology that would have a critical impact on the amount of carbon produced, and could go a long way to helping achieve the goals set forward for emissions reduction.

So far, the world by and large is ignorant of the role that LENR could play in dramatically altering the energy landscape — but once the realization grows of the advantages of LENR, forces at play in the world could provide the impetus for a call of widespread adoption of this new energy source.

  • georgehants

    Obvious, please read my reply above to BroKeeper.

  • georgehants

    I will just put up for anybody who is interested that I do not come on this Website to pass the time of day.
    I am here because science has committed one of the worst crimes against humanity that has ever occurred, in the case of Cold fusion.
    I am here because I believe that we can all make a difference and hopefully never let such crimes happen again.
    If I did not feel that my contribution was possibly helping that cause, then I would be at the casino or somewhere else enjoying my wealth.
    Anybody who does not wish to talk the Truth to me on page, I advise not to respond to my comments.

    • Obvious

      Science has not committed any crime. People abusing science as a weapon to further their own interests are at fault. And if it has gone unpunished for 25 years, then the fault is not solely the abusers of scientific knowledge and methods, but can be spread to all that were aware of the problem and did not attempt to undo the wrong, within their ability to do or facilitate justice. The crime has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with human nature. Science can be a less tangible weapon in many cases, much less than a hammer that leaves evidence. But weapons don’t kill and harm, people wielding them do, and intent is what makes something into a weapon. An axe can cut firewood, or necks as easily, but does neither except by the actions of people. A pen or some well-chosen words used effectively are just as powerful as an axe when it comes to people (less so cutting firewood).
      People are the culprits. Stop blaming science, because science has little to nothing to do with it.

      • georgehants

        Obvious, I have said before you must forgive my (necessary) use of the word “science” as a catch all.
        I could spend a week on every comment dissecting exactly who or what was at fault.
        I will just use the word science and leave it to the common-sense of people to realise I mean the elements and persons at fault.
        Do you understand that?
        Indisputably science has committed the crime of through it’s corrupt, incompetent and arrogant administration and the unquestioning obedience and sheep like following of most of it’s scientists, delayed the Research of Cold Fusion, leading inevitably to the suffering and death of all those who will hopefully be helped when the fruits of the Wonderful Research by the few Rebel True scientists, that are not influenced by corrupt “opinion experts” into debunking and denying a scientific subject by default.
        One does not mention every politician who is incompetent one just says “politics”
        I think the average person knows that parts of politics are sound.
        Your comment is distracting from the important point of putting right these horrific crimes.

        • Obvious

          Your use of the word “science” as an ad hoc replacement for callous individual actions is not acceptable, except perhaps to yourself. It is patently wrong, unfair, and indiscriminate. Dissecting who or what is at fault is precisely the correct route to begin fixing the problem.
          The horrific Truth you seek is that an unfortunate majority of people are ignorant, weak-willed, self-serving, and defer to authority with surprising ease. A small percentage of people abuse this situation to suit themselves. That is not the fault of science, but society.

          • georgehants

            Sorry, I was distracted for a while.

            The ” The “Dissecting who or what is at fault” has been done on these pages many times.
            I am concerned with how we change that.
            You are I am sure correct it will be difficult, but difficulty is just a part of life.
            What do you suggest is the next best action to change these faults in science?

            • Obvious

              There are no faults to be addressed in science. Science is a tool: nothing more or less. I refuse to glorify your loaded question with a direct response, since it is framed in an absurdity.
              The true question is how do we effectively educate the world, when our knowledge is flawed with bias, ignorance, and carrying the momentum of disinformation and abuses of power?

              • BroKeeper

                Obvious, if one had followed all comments in this blog a common thread is failing human nature and its effects on society as a whole. Although George is quite able to defend himself, I must add, in reading his previous comments it is obvious he is generalizing the failings of any sector of society (politics, science, religion, corporations, etc.) and its negative effect on it as a whole.
                Specifically in this field of interest, science received some of the worst abuses by those scientists in power upholding negative paradigms that many must follow to sustain their own career. Yes it is people in this sector of science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) that has inserted error where truth should reign. Science (knowledge) is not a god it is a ‘product’ of human failings which can cause further failings. In a sense Science does cause misfortunes when truth is repressed.
                I hope everyone views other’s comments with the intent of subject matter with some liberty verses dissecting every nuances of thought. Perhaps asking the commenter to expound on his phrase first before correction would be a better approach.

                • georgehants

                  BroKeeper, I thank you for your unbiased intervention and as you rightly say I also do not want Obvious or anybody thinking we are ganging up on him.
                  As one can see it is impossible to get a scientist to talk about the subject in hand, which for me is only how to avoid the same debacle occurring, as it has in Cold Fusion and right now in many other equally important subjects of science.
                  I could just as easily talk about the corruption etc. in every religion, but here we are dealing with Cold Fusion and the faults that have led to a 25 year delay.
                  Perhaps Obvious would put up a short post giving the major things in his opinion that need to change so that the Cold Fusion situation can never happen again.

                • Obvious

                  The Checks and Balances are there already.
                  These tools must be used with Intent, Equally and Universally, without bias. If these tools are left unused to “rust in the shed” or abused to the point of worthlessness, then ultimately the machine of Science relying on them will fail.

                • georgehants

                  Wipes sweat from brow.
                  Thanks both you guys.
                  Obvious I think you are a lot younger than me,( sorry if I am wrong) it is up to your generation to put things right.
                  Mr. Rossi is hopefully going to come out with his report soon, I am going to let things roll and try and just enjoy (if good) that World changing occasion.
                  All the best.

  • Obvious

    Reversing the flow of NG into the Ukraine won’t help, since they don’t/can’t pay the going rate anyways, so who will send it to them at a steep discount? More electricity won’t help because their grid can’t handle much more power. They have lots of nuclear reactors already.

    • Omega Z

      From what I understand, Russia charges the Ukraine a higher rate. So back flow from other sources coming out of western Europe would be at a cheaper price. There’s also the funding from the West of which the higher rates proposed by Russia is meant to blunt. E-cats could change everything, but this will take time.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      The article is discussing Fossil Fuels. Electricity is not the problem as you said.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    How many here actually read the above article?

    So many posts below talk about how great Solar or Wind power would be yet Electricity is not even much of an environmental or cost concern.

    – The Ukraine and Russia are not threatening war over Electricity.
    – Kyoto and Environmental Agencies are not concerned about our Electricity usage (for most part, nuclear activists mainly), except the burning of Coal and fossil fuels in its production.

    If we built more nuclear power then coal would not contribute to GW.

    The world is facing a Fossil Fuel crisis. This concerns Oil/Gas and 600 million cars/trucks that use them daily.

    I answered a few posts below but then realized half the posts here are concerning ways to get non nuclear/coal Energy.

    Seriously folks. I agree Fukishima was badly handled and more care should be taken, but this article is about Fossil Fuels. If you’re worried about Nuclear Power join Greenpeace or something, but it is not a cause.

    I think LENR will replace both Fossil Fuel and Electrical generation in the long run, but advocating solar and wind is just too costly. Solar costs more than coal.

    Why is everyone so hung up on Electricity? China burns so much coal they need to wear masks in most cities, but they are a very rich nation and are constructing major new Nuclear facilities to fix this. They are building 28 Reactors at moment to add to their 20 current, and they are state of the art science.

    • georgehants

      It is interesting that you think you know better than the people on page what they wish to discuss.
      If you where a psychologist how would you diagnose that?

      • friendlyprogrammer

        First. This article is mainly about Fossil Fuels, and electricity is not mentioned once in the entire article.

        I have solar panels on my sailboat, but I fail to see how that equates with your plan below to have every welfare person making or installing solar panels all day long. Nuclear Power is cheaper and clean (except waste).

        Several posts I had already responded to had discussed electricity as if it needed greener solutions including yourself.

        You for example posted,”Christopher, there are two and a quarter million unemployed in the U.K. if those people who are being paid to stay at home anyway where given the jobs of manufacturing and fitting solar panels, then the U.K. would
        become energy independent (by day) very quickly at almost no cost.What logical reason can you give for this not happening?”
        Yet Christopher did not even mention electricity and was discussing Fossil Fuels (this means Oil/Gas/coal).

        Coal may be a good alternative if we are purged on a CF revolution because otherwise we will waste billions on nuclear power plants, but if that is still decades away then we already have Nuclear alternatives which is cheaper than solar/wind.

        The main problem with Electricity is Coal. It does not contribute to Global Warming in any other sense.

        I will not answer what I would say if I were a psychologist (you want answers to your questions directly) because you might think the answer was abuse, but I just think you and others think solar will somehow save the day. It is not really even a part of the discussion.

        • georgehants

          friendly, I do not need all your thinking on energy possibilities.
          You are apparently responding to my point regarding the unemployed and solar panels.
          If you wish to give me your objection on that I will happily respond to defend my case, if I can.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Why? Can’t you read my preceding post where I copied your idea that the Welfare people should install Solar Panels all day. I have already listed my objections to that “idea”.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    I am as susceptible as any one else to dance down the conspiratorial path, but if IH offers a proven affordable game-changing product, nothing, no one can stop it. And if IH drags their feet, there are a number of other similar technologies coming down the pike. Many tech-savvy, but energy poor nations don’t kowtow to old energy’s interests.

  • BroKeeper

    I think the problem is not so much as preserving life for the least fortunate but providing quality life for all.

    The Declaration of Independence begins:
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    The question is what and who determines Happiness. Is it individually defined or is it defined by
    a body of legislators debated by other legislators likely not lived the life of the less fortunate? Is Happiness a thing of materialism and power or is it a state of mind? If it were a state of mind only I would not think the forefathers of the United States would have needed to insert the word

    Since Happiness is an unalienable Right all should be free with opportunities without obstacles.
    Unfortunately the very decision making bodies who design laws do not provide enough restrictions to those in power over other’s pursuits but are partial towards those in control.

    We think we have the power in our vote but those that run for a governmental office are predetermined by the powerful political leaders. Even if an idealistic independent is elected to office they discover quickly they must capitulate to those powers in Congress. However, despite all this, the democratic process is still the best social model devised for men created equal.

    So what is the best option we have now? I believe continue supporting men with a dream and ability like AR pursuing happiness not only for himself but sharing it with others.

    • georgehants

      BroKeeper, you say —–
      “I think the problem is not so much as preserving life for the least fortunate but providing quality life for all.”
      Please confirm that you do not believe that an equality should be established, where everybody has the basic necessities of life before anybody else has any luxuries of any kind.

      • BroKeeper

        Agreed. George, we are on the same page. I am referring beyond the need to provide basic necessities. Obviously if we are if pusuing quality it goes without saying necessities are preeimenant. I enjoy your previous comments about greed.

        • georgehants

          BroKeeper, thank you, I did not believe you could have meant what it seemed you said.
          Strangely I have just been discussing with somebody as to if my question to you was to direct.
          Do you think it is unfair to put hard direct questions to people to try and clearly find the Truth.
          For instance to science regarding the delay in Researching Cold Fusion.

          • BroKeeper

            Hard direct questions are great tests to truth. You are very good at it. Truth should withstand the harshest scrutiny. I honor your direct questions. I’m the first wanting to be corrected by others insights. There are certainly many flawed holes in my thinking as previous responses have discovered. 🙂 Thanks!

            • georgehants

              BroKeeper, my god it is rare to hear such honesty and good sense.
              Luckily I have friends that will question everything I say.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I agree, put a few demo models in malls and announce the revolution!

    • Omega Z

      In a Mall.

      Just 1 single power plant even if just 1Mw will do just fine.
      Big business will take it from there & people will become aware quite soon.
      In A Mall. People will think it’s a novelty or fake. You give to much credit to the general population.

  • jousterusa

    This was a very useful discussion! Problem is, without any big mainstream publicity about the E-Cat or the hydrino reactor, the vast majority of people are unaware of how close we are to fossil fuel freedom.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Nothing goes public until the big money gets their fill first. Take a number.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Let’s hope Internet Era can push a few buttons. This is an information age, and a few well placed Media campaigns may start a funding movement. Let’s hope.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Internet is our only hope. For information, against bullying.
          Unfortunately, none of us is likely to be willing to compromise our living standards, our small daily appointments and commitments.
          Bullies receive an easy surrender (they know it) and obtain concessions by threatening this comfortable lifestyle.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Yes, but Fossil Fuel costs are making us all uncomfortable. How many moms go unvisited because their kids don’t want to pay a $20 round trip. Gas prices are torture these days for many.

  • georgehants

    We live in a world dominated by greed. We have allowed the interests
    of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth. It
    is clear [fossil-fuel energy companies] are not simply going to give up;
    they stand to make too much money.
    Desmond Tutu

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I agree that a world which is dominated by uncontrolled greed is not desirable for the majority of humans. But a controlled ‘greed-factor’ is necessary for technological and industrial development. You could call it also the principle of incentive. Without the possibility to improve their own economic situation significantly, only a minority of inventors and entrepreneurs would have dedicated large parts of their lifetime to the projects they were pursuing. For example, I doubt that Edison would have tested thousands of materials for the filaments of his light bulbs if he had to expect just a handshake as a reward. Humans are not unselfish by nature. But their unselfishness can turn positive in an appropriate social framework. Improving this framework is undoubtedly a difficult task, but certainly more promising than the attempt to change human nature.

      • georgehants

        Well then, we just leave things as they are, do nothing and just laugh at those that are dying and suffering as a direct result of capitalism.
        How about softening your case with a few ideas of how to improve things for the better.
        When society is taught to be grabbing it will grab, but as you say given the chance one may be surprised at how many people would prefer to live in a fair World, now that the massive production capability removes all need for greedy competition.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I just wanted to express my opinion that there is no alternative to market economy. If you had made a trip to East Germany immediately after the wall had been opened in 1989, you would have seen the huge difference between the performances of a market-oriented economy and a command economy. I do not say that the capitalistic system is perfect – it’s far from being that. But I suppose you would agree that it has been improved since the times of Manchester capitalism in the 19th Century. However, these improvements have not yet reached every part of the world, and there are still many unsolved problems in the Western world. However, the development of human society will hopefully continue. It takes time and works only step for step. Throwing everything over board because it is not perfect makes no sense.

          You are right when you say that education is an important factor. But it has its limits. Socialist countries have tried to ‘educate’ their people by all possible means, with the aim that they would subordinate their personal interests under the interests of society. It did not work in all respects. The unfavorable human characteristics found their way, even without capitalism.

          • georgehants

            Andreas, It is all a problem but one that we must all find a solution for.
            It would I think be a mistake to assume that there is no answer, but better to encourage everybody to be aware of the problems and take a responsibility in finding that better way.

            • Omega Z

              Everyone is looking for a cure-all. There is none.
              It will take many different policies to fix things.
              Note This George: There is more work required & needing done in the World then we have people to fill the Jobs. Makes you wonder why people are out of work & can’t earn a living wage.
              The problem is those in charge. They don’t have a clue how to make Capitalism properly function & how to make the economy work.
              And I hear you about greed, But I see greed as more a nuisance. Not the main culprit in our problems. We just need people who can think outside the box.

          • Roy O’Neil

            Andreas: Your opinion is correct and very well stated. . There’s no successful alternative to a market economy. Anything else violates the nature of humans. Many societies have thrived under capitalism but under socialism, few if any have done well.
            Capitalism works because it exploits man’s innate desire to maximize pleasure ( short term, medium term and long term) and minimize pain ( physical and mental). I also agree that education is important but must not be controlled by socialistic-leaning politicians.

      • BroKeeper

        That’s an interesting concept “controlled ‘greed-factor’ “. What proposals are available to achieve that?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          It means, for instance, that employees should be paid properly, and that tax evasion must be prevented. But there should remain enough for those who bring their useful products onto the market. Otherwise, there would be no progress. We would have no high quality infrastructure, no decent cars, computers, cell phones, and so on…

          • BroKeeper

            Andrea, I’m not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand the logistics in achieving that fairness. Employees should be paid properly, how? What mechanism are we referring to assure that? Self control, government control, etc.?
            Now if the capitalistic law of supply and demand is considered then perhaps that will work for the highly skilled until automation comes to the point very few will have employment. Will socialism then kick in?

            • Andreas Moraitis

              I doubt that self control is effective. There must be a legal basis. Germany has just established a minimum wage; we’ll have to wait for the economic consequences. As far as I have heard, the UK has introduced minimum wages already some years ago, and there were allegedly no serious problems, such as more bankruptcy cases or a higher unemployment rate. I’m sure that nobody would call the UK therefore a socialist country. A minimum of regulations is IMO necessary to protect those who are not able to defend themselves.

              • As we have a high minimum salary and terrible social situation with unemployment and excluded people , i think it is not the good solution.

                good solution is (for government) to work hard to detect where employers or salary men abuse of they dominant position, and introduce competition and freedom in that domain…
                there is no reason that an employee is underpaid if he is productive, except a monopoly… what Marx was denouncing was that situation where big boss were abusing their cartel situation to underpay people… it did not last long when employees start to revolt and ask for better treatment…

                i defend also the idea that big companies have to die, like big banks, being replaced by self-entrepreneur and internet platform.

                about being replaced by robots, either ther is no work so no reason not to give product to everybody for free, or simply the work change and you have to train people.

                if robots build iphone, and few engineers design iphone, I’m sure non-engineers will work for the engineers to make their life more comfortable, give them vacation, to pay the iphone they love.

                more than 90% of population was in the farms before, and today few %, don’t tell me that 85% of the population is unemployed.

                if really there is no work, there is no reason to have anybody’s need unsatisfied…
                if someone is unhappy, unsatisfied, there is a work to help him.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In Edison’s time, most people were poor (by today’s standard) and by inventing something and getting money was a way to increase one’s personal standard of living markedly.

        In today’s Western societies, most people are affluent and getting extra money is no incentive for them. Extra money only buys one extra power to influence things, but most people do not mind such power. It’s an incentive only for those who are greedy and/or politically motivated by their nature. But the Darwinian outcome has been that greedy individuals have been filtered to the top and hence they have disproportionally large influence to societal matters. Consequently, society’s rules and norms have become more greedy than what most of the people would prefer.

        The problem will probably always exist to some extent, but it can be mitigated by strengthening democracy. Just voting in elections (any of them) is a good start.

        • You say it well.
          Better than greed, you could say “incentive”.
          Human do things for “incentive”, and not for charity (even charity is selfish, yet useful).
          I live in a country where greed is punished , like failures and risk…
          the result is that young wolfs here dream to have a quiet job for their life, not to discover new things.

          Part of the tragedy of cold fusion is linked to the fact that academic community is more motivated by cross-congratulation, than by greed to discover new things.

          • Mr. Moho

            Cold fusion has been heavily delayed by greed too. I would say it’s the main reason why we don’t live yet in a cold fusion-powered world.

            As long as the few lucky ones who cracked the secret to reproducible, significant experiments won’t spill the beans (and I don’t mean “sometimes reproducible” mW-scale experiments with dubious calorimetry), there will be no scientific revolution, no widespread adoption, no recognition.

            Rossi and his likes are benefiting from this and indirectly causing billions of dollars to be wasted daily on obsolete, inefficient, heavily subsidized solutions and likely millions of man hours wasted yearly by clueless researchers and inventors trying to replicate the effect or guess why it works. Not to mention the social costs which I’ll avoid discussing here.

            He will probably have to be thanked later on, but he is no saint. Same for all other lucky ones who would rather take their secrets to the grave or probably already did (Patterson). I feel very little respect for them.

            • GreenWin

              Should we apply the concept of “open source” equally to classified technologies? Some of which could certainly eliminate $billions in obsolete, inefficient, subsidized hours of research?

            • Omega Z

              Try this narrative.

              I will spend 80 hours a week studying & experimenting. Risking my life with dangerous elements. Working to build a device that produces Cheap Energy. I will spend 10, 20, 30 years of my life & every cent I have & every cent I can borrow to do this.

              If, And that’s a Big If, I succeed, I’ll have made everyone’s life better And I’ll be Very Well compensated for all my hard work & sacrifice.

              Wait a Minute. I’ll be accused of being evil for not accomplishing it sooner. I’ll be called Greedy & selfish for expecting to be compensated for all I’ve sacrificed.

              Nope. Not going to do it.

              Maybe I’ll just go make a Hit Song & make $80 Million & complain I should have made more because people pirated my work. Or become an Athlete who gets paid $30 Million a year. I’ll be hailed a great Icon & worshiped by the little people who will pay for my autograph.
              And if that don’t work out, Just go live off the Tax Payer on Government subsidies. Yep. That’s the ticket.

      • Bernie777

        The problem is the word “controlled”. Capitalistic Greed is not being regulated effectively, thus the 2008 meltdown, and more to come.

    • Christopher Calder

      We use fossil fuels because they actually work and are cost effective. Without fossil fuels we would all starve to death, and that includes our pets and our farm animals. It is insane to vilify the fossil fuel industry that is saving our lives every single day. Windmills and solar schemes do not work and have only caused disaster. Europe is collapsing as an industrial power because of the “green” fad insanity. We need a REAL replacement for fossil fuels that has HIGH ENERGY DENSITY. Trying to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy schemes is like trying to replace a three course meal with a potato chip. Biofuels, as an example, have killed far more people worldwide than all wars and acts of terrorism combined over the 1993 to 2013 time frame. Food price hyperinflation is the result of our stupidity. We need to start talking and acting rationally and realize that the environmental movement so far has been horribly destructive, not constructive. LENR has the potential to actually replace fossil fuels. “Greed” is not our main problem. Childishness, dishonesty, and irresponsible fantasy thinking are our main problems.

      • georgehants

        Christopher, there are two and a quarter million unemployed in the U.K. it those people who are being paid to stay at home where given the jobs of manufacturing and fitting solar panels then the U.K. would become energy independent (by day) very quickly.
        What logical reason can you give for this not happening.

        • Christopher Calder

          The only real money the UK Government has is money it takes from taxpayers. Wasting taxpayer money to finance worthless energy schemes that do not work makes as much sense as paying people to lie in bed. Solar panels are worse than lying in bed because of all the pollution created manufacturing them.



          FOOD = ENERGY & ENERGY = FOOD! Renewable energy schemes are so inefficient that they are horribly expensive. If you have horribly expensive energy you will have horribly expensive food. High food prices kill people, not just inconvenience people. Malnutrition kills more people every day than war, terrorism, cancer, automobiles accidents, or any other single cause of premature death.

          • georgehants

            Christopher, there are a few logical problems with your reply.

          • Alain Samoun

            Wind and solar farms are an absurdity,you are right, just look at Germany,but wind and above all solar energies are not made to replace exactly fossil fuel and fission the way they are used for generating electricity in large reactors/boilers and using the grid to transport it. The solution is the opposite, using decentralized mode of energy to be produced locally at the level of single or small groups of households or businesses.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Don’t try reasoning with him. You could tell him many areas are not compatible with solar because of consistent cloud cover and rain, or that solar costs more than coal (or anything) and it will fall on deaf ears. PV panels also wear over time.
            Fables about the destruction of the mythical city Atlantis claim they were so dependent upon solar that a few volcano eruptions crippled the nations energy, so they are not disaster proof and any serious eruptions could easily wipe out needed infrastructure during times of duress.

            Why would any LENR advocate even think another source of energy is a good idea. We know LENR will be pushing the turbines within a few decades.

            • georgehants

              Well friendly you are doing everything you can to prove my hypothesis about the glass of cold water.
              In your case the glass of water certainly comes out on top.
              Are you suggesting that every use of solar energy by people proves in your opinion that they don’t know what they are doing?

        • Wayne M.

          Solar and Wind can replace fossil fuels? How? They cannot scale up and they are not as energetic nor as versatile. It is glib to say 2.25 million people could be put to work building windmills. If it could be done, it would be. BTW, the vast majority of business owners and scientists are decent people. They are not clones of Darth Vader holding back LENR or alien technology from the “masses”.

          • georgehants

            I am sure that many are good people, I am also sure that you are doing everything you can to help remove those who are not.
            I did not mention wind power.

            • Wayne M.


              You are right, you never mentioned wind power. Apparently my earlier response supplied all the wind. I apologize if I came across sarcastically. My politics don’t dovetail with this website, but I keep coming back for news (positive or negative).

              LENR is real. I am waiting for the report and I am more than a bit impatient. The report won’t change anything at all, but it is the required prerequisite to an actual product by IH. They are seeking investors.

              Hope springs eternal.

              Wayne M.

              • georgehants

                Wayne, this year may just begin to change the World, I am with you, as always the old sayings are best —-
                Hope springs eternal.

          • GreenWin

            This is true Wayne. But it does remind that should you hear a scientist or businessman breathing as though by aqualung… beware Luke.

      • Alain Samoun

        “Windmills and solar schemes do not work and have only caused disaster” Ah? Where?
        You don’t mean the air pollution of cities Beijing,London,Paris and the ultimate: Wars like in Irak and the one looming in Ukraine Except that of course it is “insane to vilify the fossil fuel industry”

    • GreenWin

      Greed also appears as pride and hubris. In the behavior of certain individuals and cabals unwilling to admit failures (hot fusion.) Physicists /scientists /politicians unwilling to concede they may have been wrong. Even highly evolved intelligences appear to suffer the deadly “sin” of pride.

    • Ophelia Rump

      When solar power first emerged as a possible new power source, Exxon bought 90% of the copper on earth because it is a key ingredient in solar panels.
      When the resources dwindle in one game it is time to start another.
      Greed does not always have a negative impact.

      Profit and they will come.

  • LENr announce and Global Warming alert will be a good test of Global warming activist real will.

    If you see all IPCC applaude, with all actifists from greenpeace to WWF, from Green party to Green funds, then I will consider all that movement is sincere.

    If you see the green party and NGO panic and call agains that devilish energy.
    If you see IPCC moand that it is not enough, not a solution, not good, that they need to continue working for 50 more years…
    If you see governments and funding agencies continue funding wind and solar…
    Then you will know what is their real motive.

    whatever is their behavior, LENR is the solution, at least 80% of it.

    • DMA

      Alain, you have stated the real test of the green movement and , I believe, deduced the solution. Thank you for your work.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Honestly; That reply got 9 thumbs ups already and it is soooo off topic and wrong in my opinion.

      Electricity is not a problem. The Ukraine and Russia are not going to fight over electricity. Electricity is so easy to make you could do it yourself if you wanted with solar or wind, but it is cheaper to simply buy electricity from a Nuclear Power plant.

      Global warming activists could care less about our electricity consumption (for most part). The activists are concerned with Fossil Fuels like Oil/Gas. Citizens are concerned with Fossil Fuels like Oil/Gas. People used to drive for fun, and now many families are forced to conserve fuel because of costs. Cottage real estate worldwide has been hit in values because of gas prices.

      Oh yeah. There are some environmental concerns about all the Carbon being pushed through 600 million cars/trucks on our planet.

      Why the heck is everyone talking about Electricity? Stick an alternator on your exercise bike and you’ll be able to power the emergency broadcasts when Global Warming takes its toll.

      Let’s focus…. Gas everyone, not electricity.