The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Agree 100%. Reactor design has improved enormously over the years. Talking about "nuclear reactor safety" in general terms is stupid. The super-safe modern designs are slow to be adopted only because of a fossilised and ultra-chnage-averse planning system. But even the "best known good" designs are very very safe.


    More - nuclear risks have a psychological effect quite out of proportion to other risks. Nuclear releases (at any level) increase background radioactivity and that is bad for health. But small background increases have a very small effect on health. Whereas PM2.5 and Nox air pollution in tows, from cars and industry, has a proven much larger effect on health.


    But new nuclear reactors face opposition quite disproportionate to risks when compared with town planning that allows car and industry pollution at seriously high levels.


    Again, we know that the climate will get hotter and therefore have more extremes as well as making some heavily populated places unlivable. How much this happens depends on how fast we decarbonise. There are many routes to decarbonisation but for base load nuclear power beats energy storage on cost except in a few special cases (countries with a large amount of cheap hydro or geothermal power).


    Cost matters:

    (a) because the pace of decarbonisation is constrained by governments not wanting to spend money

    (b) because more expensive decarbonisation means less money for other things and that in most democracies translates into more child poverty.


    Child poverty is a much much larger health (and growth) threat than nuclear power or even air pollution.


    THH


    Uranium extraction is a horrible polluter - as are many other mineral extraction processes. Not because it has to be that, but because it is not regulated enough to make it less horrible - we have this extractive pollution versus cost trade-off in many industries and nuclear is no worse than others, with com[parable risks and comparable poor conditions for workers. All fixable.


    PPS - there will probably become a time when renewables + a whole set of storage technologies end up being cheaper on large scale than nuclear. But we are not there yet. So fast decarbonisation at politically feasible cost => nuclear for base-load

    Quote from Storms

    and the more detailed rejection by THH, my effort failed.

    I am wondering why you feel I reject your paper? I identified two ways in which your predictions were testable and therefore useful and I was not ruling out others.


    All attempts to create a working hypothesis for LENR must be informed guesswork until we have strong evidence for one of them. it does not mean we should not do them.


    THH

    Nuclear power generation phase-outs redistribute US air quality and climate-related mortality risk - Nature Energy
    How a nuclear power phase-out may affect air pollution, climate and health in the future is up for debate. Here the authors assess impacts of a nuclear…
    www.nature.com


    We explore how nuclear shut-downs in the United States could affect air pollution, climate and health with existing and alternative grid infrastructure. We develop a dispatch model to estimate emissions of CO2, NOx and SO2 from each electricity-generating unit, feeding these emissions into a chemical transport model to calculate effects on ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Our scenario of removing nuclear power results in compensation by coal, gas and oil, resulting in increases in PM2.5 and ozone that lead to an extra 5,200 annual mortalities. Changes in CO2 emissions lead to an order of magnitude higher mortalities throughout the twenty-first century, incurring US$11–180 billion of damages from 1 year of emissions. A scenario exploring simultaneous closures of nuclear and coal plants redistributes health impacts and a scenario with increased penetration of renewables reduces health impacts. Inequities in exposure to pollution are persistent across all scenarios—Black or African American people are exposed to the highest relative levels of pollution.

    Let me interject that I think that CO2 from fossil fuels is overblown as a danger. Every single person is a walking CO2 emitter with their carbon footprint. Overpopulation with it's associated habitat loss, deforestation, etc is a huge source that "environmentalists" aren't capable of mentioning due to PC reasons. Plus we can talk about geological statistics like ice ages being way more destructive in ancient human history. But to cut to the chase, we should reduce CO2 where possible particularly considering the new massive energy demand from "AI" and continuing population expansion. I think fission may be the only viable solution in the short term (until Rossi's e-cat is shipping 😆)

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    Let me interject that I think that CO2 from fossil fuels is overblown as a danger. Every single person is a walking CO2 emitter with their carbon footprint. Overpopulation with it's associated habitat loss, deforestation, etc is a huge source that "environmentalists" aren't capable of mentioning due to PC reasons. Plus we can talk about geological statistics like ice ages being way more destructive in ancient human history. But to cut to the chase, we should reduce CO2 where possible particularly considering the new massive energy demand from "AI" and continuing population expansion. I think fission may be the only viable solution in the short term (until Rossi's e-cat is shipping 😆)

    In terms of near-term climate change (that hurts us now) we can change methane emissions by doing agriculture differently. Fewer cows, or cows eating different stuff, or cows genetically modified to fart less.


    The methane contribution to AGW has time constant of only 4 years and is relatively easily reduced.


    Whereas cutting CO2 emissions does not help us now - with time constant of 200 years - but equally it is that which builds up and leads to long-term change.


    We are already pushing the earth out of its equilibrium - we know there are many positive feedbacks, but we do not know overall what the effect of that push will be long-term.


    Geoengineering is not nice in lots of ways, and will have its own climate problems - but it can be deployed quickly enough to prevent a major positive feedback catastrophe should that end up happening, if methane reductions are not enough.


    Still - everything is more expensive than spending a bit more now pushing the economy slowly but surely towards lower carbon.

    Both you are citizens from a country which is the current bigger CO2 producer…. No ?

    The main reason for climate change on Earth is cold nuclear fusion occurring in the core and mantle of the Earth, as a result of which:

    1) Hydrogen is synthesized and then other chemical elements up to nickel-iron in the core,

    2) In the mantle and crust of the Earth, under the influence of hydrogen, other chemical elements after iron and organic substances (oil, methane, etc.) are synthesized

    3) As a result of this process of cold nuclear fusion, the mass and size of the Earth increases, continents diverge, faults, volcanoes, earthquakes and the like occur.

    Human activity in climate change can hardly be estimated at 10%.

    Agree and earth stays at the center of Mickey Mouse universe 😝

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    The main reason for climate change on Earth is cold nuclear fusion occurring in the core and mantle of the Earth, as a result of which:

    1) Hydrogen is synthesized and then other chemical elements up to nickel-iron in the core,

    2) In the mantle and crust of the Earth, under the influence of hydrogen, other chemical elements after iron and organic substances (oil, methane, etc.) are synthesized

    3) As a result of this process of cold nuclear fusion, the mass and size of the Earth increases, continents diverge, faults, volcanoes, earthquakes and the like occur.

    Human activity in climate change can hardly be estimated at 10%.

    We barely touched on climate change, and already some finger pointing, and ruffled feathers. That is why we try and stay away from it. If rising temps are because of mankind, LENR will fix that. If not, it will still be a game changer. So, stay focused on why we are here.

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    By the way, cold nuclear fusion occurs in the light bulb!

    So why is the cold nuclear fusion in a lightbulb so less efficient than in an LED?

    Moderators, I think we should shut down LENR Forum because it is obvious cold nuclear fusion is everywhere so there is no need to discuss it, just look at a lightbulb.

    We need to be much more concerned with the mass and size of the earth increasing constantly, through hydrogen production in the core and organic chemicals etc.

    Our personal weight gains due to gravity increasing will be quite embarrassing.

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    The main reason for climate change on Earth is cold nuclear fusion occurring in the core and mantle of the Earth, as a result of which:

    1) Hydrogen is synthesized and then other chemical elements up to nickel-iron in the core,

    2) In the mantle and crust of the Earth, under the influence of hydrogen, other chemical elements after iron and organic substances (oil, methane, etc.) are synthesized

    3) As a result of this process of cold nuclear fusion, the mass and size of the Earth increases, continents diverge, faults, volcanoes, earthquakes and the like occur.

    Alexandr, I'm really curious.

    How long ago did you develop your current theories? Was this recent?

    Were you employed before you became an "independent theoretical physicist"?

    At the time these theories crystalized in your mind, was it associated with some sort of head injury or other medical condition?

    Jokes aside, an electric light bulb is a typical cold fusion generator:

    1) Look at the isotopic composition at the beginning and end of combustion over a period of time; new chemical elements will appear,

    2) Excess thermal-kinetic energy will be released,

    3) the mass of the bulb will decrease.

    Independent theoretical physicist Alexander Nikshtein, who is in perfect health

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.