LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

  • I dont find it reasonable to create uncontrolable nuclear waste only to avoid Co2. This is like chosing a kick in the balls over a soft hit with a hand.

    Gen-4 fission designs are the statistically and scientifically optimum energy we have among acknowledged energy sources that push on through weather fluctuations. This is without concidering anything new that would present a greater option, (LENR, warm fusion/annialation, "pico-chemistry/hydrinos") whatever tag one wants to drop.

  • Nuclear waste is uncomfortable only when you sleep next to it. The hysteria around the waste cost us 20 years delay towards zero carbon.


    Already the production of the Uranium fuel consumes 12% of the produced energy. About the same amount is used during construction of the nuclear power plant. As this is all carbon energy the carbon footprint of classic fission nuclear power is huge compared to Swiss water or solar power!

  • Already the production of the Uranium fuel consumes 12% of the produced energy. About the same amount is used during construction of the nuclear power plant. As this is all carbon energy the carbon footprint of classic fission nuclear power is huge compared to Swiss water or solar power!

    there are different nuclear fuels being considered apart from enriched u-235, some designs can consume spent fuel. Solar will take a log way to become base load. What works for Swiss will not work for Chinese.
    No one fit all solution but there no way into the future without good old nuclear unless we want a replay German delusion when they decided to quit nuclear and now probably regret.

  • Maybe after another 30 years of soaking electrodes and baking pipes.

    The funny thing is the positive Hydrogen/metal/catalyst experiments could represent a new power source that may not be nuclear. The persons that fight against advancing fission are some of the same ones claiming the next energy source has to be multi-billion dollar hot fusion. We shouldn't demonize all but windmills and firewood just for the comfort of the emotional tides and scientifically illiterate mouth pieces.


    Germany's approach to nuclear and green energy is the wrong approach, at least replace it with something improved. I pray we think about energy objectively and how it affects less developed peaceful countries that would benifit from 4th gen fission and super-chemical energy. Solar panels, windmills, taxation and such may benifit the current state of affairs even while relatively inefficient, but I think some lack true ambition to unleash potencial.

  • https://nationalpost.com/news/…te-goals-federal-minister


    Always nice to have somebody reasonable in the govt. even when he is ex tv anchor


    'Affordable, safe' nuclear power is key to reaching Canada's climate goals: federal minister


    This person wants "affordable, safe nuclear power." I want that too! That would be great. I would welcome affordable, safe fission power, just as I would welcome a cure for cancer. Unfortunately, nuclear power costs far more than any other source of electricity, and the Fukushima disaster showed that it is not safe. The price tag for nuclear reactor being constructed in Georgia went from $16 billion to $28 billion, and is likely to continue to rise. It bankrupted Westinghouse. Even without cost overruns, when nuclear power costs what it is supposed to, it is $5,530 per kilowatt hour of capacity. It cannot compete with natural gas at $1,376, or wind $2,213, or even coal $2,934.


    Just saying we want something, and saying it is the key, does not actually make the technology appear out of nowhere.

  • Nuclear waste is uncomfortable only when you sleep next to it. The hysteria around the waste cost us 20 years delay towards zero carbon.


    I live near Asse in germany. Nuclear waste was stored underground in an old salt mine. Estimation was that there will be no water in this mine for hundred thousands of years. After 30 years they have water in there and now they try to get the nuclear waste out so that our drinking water is not contaminated. Its going to cost a few billion € and it will take 30-40 years.


    No human being is able to oversight timespans of ten thousands of years. So no...I dont agree. Perhaps now nobody is sleeping next to this stuff. But certainly within the next 10000 years someone will.

  • Nuclear waste doesn't have to be a problem or a least there is a hope to do more than just bury nuclear waste.


    One of the linkages to cold fusion is accelerated nuclear decay of radioactive material. A theory for the connection is based on Paul Brown's patent. Brown found he could accelerated nuclear decay by exciting nuclear resonance by gamma rays. Hence, if cold fusion processes cause an increase in giant nuclear resonance, they will like cause accelerated nuclear decay. Dufour describes an accelerated nuclear decay experiment in ICCF-7. The accelerated decay of Uranium hydride by current pulse is impressive compared to his control.

  • Nuclear waste doesn't have to be a problem or a least there is a hope to do more than just bury nuclear waste.


    One of the linkages to cold fusion is accelerated nuclear decay of radioactive material. A theory for the connection is based on Paul Brown's patent. Brown found he could accelerated nuclear decay by exciting nuclear resonance by gamma rays. Hence, if cold fusion processes cause an increase in giant nuclear resonance, they will like cause accelerated nuclear decay. Dufour describes an accelerated nuclear decay experiment in ICCF-7. The accelerated decay of Uranium hydride by current pulse is impressive compared to his control.


    Bob Greenyer has talked extensively on the treatment of radiactive waste with Brown's gas and also with the Omasa vibration system. The Italians on Cardone's team also claim radiation reduction due to transmutation into stable elements.


    Of course all these claims have been generally dismissed, but I think Omasa has provided really interesting data about this using tritium laced water, if one believes the data in his WIPO patent application.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.


  • Bob Greenyer has talked extensively on the treatment of radiactive waste with Brown's gas and also with the Omasa vibration system. The Italians on Cardone's team also claim radiation reduction due to transmutation into stable elements.


    Of course all these claims have been generally dismissed, but I think Omasa has provided really interesting data about this using tritium laced water, if one believes the data in his WIPO patent application.

    Right now the only thing you can actually do with Ohmasa tech is to enhance sake taste. Everything else belongs to 'urban legends' category.


  • Bob Greenyer has talked extensively on the treatment of radiactive waste with Brown's gas and also with the Omasa vibration system. The Italians on Cardone's team also claim radiation reduction due to transmutation into stable elements.


    Of course all these claims have been generally dismissed, but I think Omasa has provided really interesting data about this using tritium laced water, if one believes the data in his WIPO patent application.

    I think the sentiment or procedures have merit but the theoretical pathway could be different. It could intuitively manifest from the same basic proccess as the uranium hydrides with electric pulses. Some sort of medium distance coupling with or disturbance of sub-atomic structure to accelerate decay, without nucleus/Coulomb braking energies?


    It's likely not genuine transmutation mostly, though something strange and ground breaking is accuring. Deep orbit proton adding or electromagnetic effects seem capable of stabilisation, resulting in a less likely to decay compound resembling a stable element, or interactions that accelerate the decay path?! So "instantaneous stablization" would be a chemically mediated sort of hybrid hydride/isotope lock, and genuine accelerated rates of decay would be medium/long distance interactions that speed up the process. Just brainstorming.

  • why would we care about that? There are dozens of competing explanations and 0 working reactors.

    I am talking specifically about LENR-like approaches to dealing with nuclear waste, low energy "transmutation" for some practical purposes and accelerating decay of unstable isotopes to use as energy sources. If there are zero confirmed positives I appologise.

  • No human being is able to oversight timespans of ten thousands of years. So no...I dont agree. Perhaps now nobody is sleeping next to this stuff. But certainly within the next 10000 years someone will.


    I think this problem is exaggerated. Yes, of course, some radwaste will remain dangerous for 10,000 years or more. But I expect that roughly 200 years from now, people will find ways to remove the material from earth completely. Perhaps with something like a space elevator that is so safe, the accident rate is near zero. Perhaps with reinforced freight cars with emergency parachutes that would survive falling to earth. The radwaste can be transferred to the moon, or dropped into the sun. People 200 years from now will be able to deal with this far better than we can, at a much lower cost.


    It is extremely unlikely people will forget about this problem, or lose track of the material in only 200 years. There are many institutions that have been in constant activity for longer than that, where nothing so important has been forgotten. Such as Harvard University.


    Some problems should be left to our grandchildren. It seems contradictory, but sometimes that is the responsible thing to do. We should do the best we can to isolate the material and keep people safe for now, but we should leave a long-term, 10,000-year scale solution to future generations. It is probably better to produce radwaste now than lots more CO2 with coal.


    Along the same lines, I expect that in about 100 years (far sooner than a permanent radwaste solution emerges) our solid waste landfills will become a valuable source of raw materials. Materials will extracted by robots. We think of landfills as a burden and a problem, and people don't like leaving them to future generations, but future generations may not mind. They may even appreciate it. That is not to suggest we should scale back recycling, or stop trying to keep toxic waste from reaching the water table.

  • Waste is energy that just needs to be alleviated productively in a different mechanism than the one that produces it. It's an opportunity not a liability.