Quote from interested observer

“So in one instance, "main stream" is full of crap because they do not support my view of LENR, but then one will accept everything main stream says about something else IF it supports my view!”

Indeed, almost everyone accepts and trusts mainstream science except those aspects of it that interfere with whatever specific unorthodox views they might hold.

In the case of cold fusion there is confusion over what constitutes mainstream science. I define mainstream science as what is published in respected, peer-reviewed journals by leading academic scientists. By that standard, cold fusion is as mainstream as you can get. There are hundreds of papers describing cold fusion replications, but only three papers calling these replications into question. Those three have no merit, in my opinion. Read this one and decide for yourself:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

There are, of course, many other peer-reviewed papers saying that cold fusion violates theory so it cannot exist. This is a violation of the scientific method. There are some experimental papers describing methods that Fleischmann and other experts thought were mistaken, such as the NHE analysis. There were many informal critiques outside the literature in places like academic conferences, but I do not think they have merit. See pages 25 to 36 here:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

Other than those three peer-reviewed papers, most opposition to cold fusion has been in two places: the lunatic fringe such as Wikipedia, written by ignorant trolls. And in outrageous ad hominem columns in places like the Washington Post, Scientific American and New Scientist. This is as far from science as anything can be. See, for example:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf

Overall, there is no legitimate mainstream opposition to cold fusion, and there never has been. What we see instead is a great deal of illegitimate, unfounded, ignorant opposition. Much of it comes from professional scientists, but these scientists know nothing about the subject, as you see from reading them. A scientist who knows nothing about a subject cannot judge it. Nothing he says can have any merit. To call such grotesque ignorance "mainstream science" is rob the term "science" of all meaning. It is like saying a person who knows nothing about football, who has never watched a game, and does not even know the rules, (me -- in other words) is magically qualified to referee the Super Bowl.

Quote from JedRothwell

I doubt it. 30% is a suspiciously round number. I doubt anyone outside a phone company has access to the information you would need to establish this.

I am calling for that, by switching to in vitro meat production. That is a problem with a clear solution. A solution that would have many other advantages, such as lower cost, less energy and water consumption, and so on.

I do not think I am guilty of this. Even if 30% of internet traffic is devoted to porn, 70% is not, and that fraction has greatly reduced overall energy consumption and waste in many ways. Overall, I am confident the internet saves far more energy than it costs. Other modern technology has clearly saved more energy than it costs, because overall energy consumption per capita for the last several decades is down, and energy intensity per dollar of GDP is way down. It is down by 28 to 40% since 1990, depending on the type of economy.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032

Per capita energy consumption in the U.S. peaked in 2000 at 350 million BTU, and has fallen to 305 million BTU. Per chained dollar (2012 value) it fell from 15.11 BTU/dollar in 1950 to 5.25 today. As a share of the GDP it has fallen from 13% to 6%. No matter how you look at it, energy use is declining. There is no reason to think it will not continue to decline. We are still far from the limits.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_19.pdf

Display More

True, energy cost money and there is a constant race to improve that cost. But then we have SUV's taking over the world. That is a depressing chapter. SUV. We also have the fact that people travel more and more long distances in air, In sweden this is usually vacation travel. I really hate this point as my poor elderly parents need to pay filthy high taxes on life nessesary gasoline and car taxes, but rich city slickers can travel a 4 times or even more a year and enjoy cheap flight gasoline for pleasure only. As you can imagine (this year an exception) the travelling is going through the roof and will eat any improvements in decreased car use and energy efficiancy.

Quote from stefan

True, energy cost money and there is a constant race to improve that cost. But then we have SUV's taking over the world.

SUVs are depressing. Not only do they cause more pollution, they are dangerous. They kill more of their own drivers, people in other vehicles, and pedestrians. It is ironic that people buy them thinking they are safer. See:

High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV

https://www.amazon.com/High-Mi…e-SUV-ebook/dp/B001GXQOM8

Quote from interested observer

However, I was mostly talking about things like anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, Moon landing deniers, and the like. Cold fusion doesn’t rise to (um, fall to) the level of those irrational rejections of the facts. And I bet I will stir up a few folks here who embrace some of those things.

Not to quibble, but I think people such as evolution deniers and Moon landing deniers would agree they are outside the scientific mainstream. Some of them take pride in being outside the mainstream. They are proud to say they know better than the experts.

https://www.popularmechanics.c…ters-compete-jet-engines/

Quote from Shane D.

Detailed article about how Tesla leads it's competitors. Some through solid, innovative engineering, but mostly through knowing, and taking advantage of some EPA regulatory loopholes:

I think "mostly" is an exaggeration here. This article says that Tesla is exaggerating the range of its cars by taking advantage of loopholes. I wouldn't know about that. But here is what I do know --

Yes, range is an important sales point. But many other aspects of electric cars are also important. I have driven a Tesla and a Leaf, and I have seen some other electric cars. Plus, at the mall I have looked closely at conventional gasoline luxury cars such as the Mercedes Benz. The Tesla is dramatically better than the others. It has many features they do not have. It is a whole new way to make automobiles. It is complete rethinking of what an automobile is and how it should work.

I would never spend that much money on a car, unless it was self-driving. But if I were in the market for a luxury car, I wouldn't even consider getting anything other than a Tesla. Something like a Benz is no better than 1990 luxury car. The Tesla is 30 years ahead of it. The safety features and ease of use are far ahead of the Benz. For example, the dashboard display shows you the surrounding traffic. It shows you are clear to change lanes. Or, if you like, it will change lanes on the highway automatically, probably with greater safety than a human driver could. Changing lanes makes me nervous.

Also, the range is not that much better than other electric cars in its price range.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is very expensive, it takes a lot of infrastructure, and it creates a tremendous amount of solid waste when the devices wear out. Especially with PV electricity. Much of that waste cannot be recycled.

If it works, cold fusion will be 10 times cheaper than any other source of energy at first, and later thousands of times cheaper. It will be so abundant that at a consumption level far higher than today's it will last longer than the sun. (As would plasma fusion, but it is not cheap and it produces lots of radwaste.)

See my book for details:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Display More

Jed,

How long have you been saying

“If it works”?

The change to humankind would be staggering, this is not debatable, however,

“Will it ever work” is debatable,

and so far it doesn’t.

Are your expectations that planet earth will see exploitable LENR in your lifetime?

https://arstechnica.com/scienc…sign-certified-in-the-us/

On Friday, the first small modular reactor received a design certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meaning that it meets safety requirements and could be chosen by future projects seeking licensing and approval.

The design comes from NuScale, a company birthed from research at Oregon State University that has received some substantial Department of Energy funding. It’s a 76-foot-tall, 15-foot-wide steel cylinder (23 meters by 5 meters) capable of producing 50 megawatts of electricity. (The company also has a 60-megawatt iteration teed up.) They envision a plant employing up to 12 of these reactors in a large pool like those used in current nuclear plants.

Quote from Roseland67

How long have you been saying

“If it works”?

I should say "if it can be made into a practical source of energy." Obviously it "works" in the physical sense of producing excess heat. So does plasma fusion, but that is so dangerous, polluting and difficult I think there is no likelihood it can be made into a practical source of energy. Whereas cold fusion could easily be made into a practical source of energy once it is controlled.

In the 1960s there were proposals to use fission bombs as a source of energy. They would be exploded underground and then water would be pumped through the hot cavities. There was also the ground-launched Project Orion spacecraft, and fission powered jet aircraft. These things might have actually worked, but they could never be a safe, practical source of energy. (It is conceivable that an Orion spacecraft operating only in deep space might work.)

Quote from Roseland67

The change to humankind would be staggering, this is not debatable, however,

“Will it ever work” is debatable,

and so far it doesn’t.

So far it has not been made practical, because there is no funding, and because there is tremendous opposition because of academic politics. If it were not for the politics, we would have cold fusion powered cars by now.

Quote from Roseland67

Are your expectations that planet earth will see exploitable LENR in your lifetime?

That depends entirely on politics.