The impact of NFE on transportation

By Anony Mole

What transportation industries will blossom? Which flounder and fail? What new modes of travel will we have? What will abundant fuel for transportation do to other industries?

NASA focuses on air and space travel within their slide presentation. But what of us, humans, and our travel needs?

• Mobile homes will become popular again. Tricked out homes tooling the roads with expanded mobile home theme and nature parks their destination.

• Personal hover craft, submarines, and aerodynamic helium flight will be economically possible.

• Natural raw resource exports and imports will enable manufacturing in places considered too remote or inconvenient today.

• Antarctica will become a popular tourist destination.

• Northern hemisphere cities will practically empty during the winter as more than half of the residents head south to tropical resorts.

• Cars will become like grocery carts, you pick one up when you need one, drop it off anywhere when you’re done.

• • • ?

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

87 Responses to “The impact of NFE on transportation”

  1. brucefast Says:

    By “Mobile Homes” I presume you mean motor homes. I do expect that motor homes will become unbelievably popular. A major hindrance to them is the cost of fuel. A second major hindrance to them is access to infrastructure. With infinite power on board, and with the growth of cell phones, the only infrastructure issues remaining are access to water and waste disposal.

    “Antarctica will become a popular tourist destination.” Well, it won’t be any problem keeping buildings warm, that’s for sure.

    “Northern hemisphere cities will practically empty …” I doubt it. People still have to work. Working remotely isn’t all its cracked up to be.

    “Cars will become like grocery carts, you pick one up when you need one” If society goes this way, I will be SHOCKED!. People love to have a space that they own near to where they are. They can keep stuff in that space. They can move groceries and purchases back home much easier. Further, the car is a status symbol. I doubt that vehicle ownership will change. I would hope, however, that cars would finally literally take off — flying cars.

    • Anony Mole Says:

      The ability to travel will expand while the need to travel will be reduced. This flies in the face of the statement regarding the emptying of cities. Just because we CAN got to Cancun in the winter now won’t mean that we need to as we will heat our cities and home and northern snow resorts with NFE. So, that statement of mine is probably false.

      However, I’ve been telecommuting for 6 years now. I see the boss about once every 18 months, truly. This trend should grow I would think. So, it would matter little if I were in Cancun, Cabo or Calgary as long as I had network and electricity. And cold beer of course.

  2. Roger Bird Says:

    I can’t see any change in the transportation industry other than a lot of savings. Transportation seems to be governed mostly by necessity. People need their lettuce.

    There will be far less fuel tankers and coal trains since those goods will be not be necessary. This will lower demand on big trucks and trains, which will open up the possibility of other goods using those big rigs and trains.

    • Anony Mole Says:

      All the energy tranport will need to get converted to raw resource transport for manufacturing and construction; iron, copper, aluminum, limestone, metallurgical coal and REEs will need to be mined, shipped and used in fabrication of all those new cars, electric motors, flat panel TVs, modular homes and stuff the developing world will start to clamor for.

      Rail is a funny beast. It owns all those right-of-ways and land beneath the tracks. Diesel electric is already pretty efficient but it is the logistics of trains that suck. Station locations are often not convenient for consumer use, and schedules, line availability and line direction often just don’t work out. And so, yes, trucking, big beautiful, comfortable trucking lines will burgeon out and take on all the lettuce shipping the planet needs.

      Will airlines finally become profitable then? Lighter than air + LENR jet ships sedately flying 10k tons of cargo from Mexico to N.Y.?

      LENR bicycles? Probably not. We are going to need one hell-of-a-lot of batteries…

  3. Brad Arnold Says:

    I am seeing a lot of worries about LENR’s ability to fit into the niches fossil fuel is currently occupying. Almost all of these worries are because people are applying the old paradigm of dirty, expensive, and limited fossil fuel energy instead of the clean, very cheap, and almost unlimited LENR energy.

    For instance, maybe it takes a while for a LENR generator to warm up – but why not just keep it running? Or, why not use LENR for waste disposal or to take water directly out of the air for sanitation? While conservation may be a virtue, with LENR energy it is virtually a non-issue.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Brad- you suggest “keep it running”. Not a bad idea, but we’d be dumping that unused heat into the environment. The Earth seems to do a pretty good job of radiating excess heat at night no matter what the insolation in the day is (In the desert, you can boil in the day and freeze at night). This might become a problem in the big cities, though, meaning that although in the country you could do it as you wish, in the cities there’d need to be a central generating station. This would take advantage of the current infrastructure, and keep the big power companies in business though they’d then really be charging only for the service, not the power itself. In the country, we’d lose those power pylons.

      Most of the nice uses really depend on getting electricity as the end-product, which may take a few years to get to.

      After 9/11, planes in the States were grounded for 3 days. During this time the diurnal difference in temperature increased by 3°F, if I remember correctly. Check out Ken Caldiera’s work for full details. The absence of all those con-trails in the sky meant that more sun got through in the day and more heat was radiated off at night. Absence of pollution may not be an altogether good thing. On the other hand, with enough energy we could air-condition the planet ;>).

      You’re absolutely right about energy conservation being a non-issue – since the sun emits around 4 million tonnes a second in energy, the odd few grams of matter burnt per person per year are vanishingly small, especially if we can go grab an asteroid or two to top up now and again.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        The issue of environmental heat waste from “combusion” is an issue, so I would (and have never) made the statement that LENR is the answer for global warming. A couple of years ago a couple of scientists actually computed (approximated) the amount of heat mankind has put into the environment, and it closely matches the amount the world has heated up (in my mind a coincidence, but on the other hand ought to be considered a factor at the very least).

        The trick is that if you have a very cheap and clean source of energy, then you can figure out ways to use that to (for instance) remove GHG from the air, or dump heat outside the atmosphere. (For instance) How about running a conductive cable outside the atmosphere and pumping heat up that way?

        The only thing I would comment on is that worrying about the environmental heat waste LENR will bring to the table is like trying to find the dark lining in the silver cloud. You gotta walk before you can run. The problem of environmental waste heat is secondary to GHG keeping deflecting infrared energy back down to Earth. LENR solves that primary problem.

    • Anony Mole Says:

      I doubt that LENR will be a direct replacement for the balance of energy sources in use today. Sure continuous low temperature heating is a logical replacement but for any intermittent use LENR will need to be teamed up with hybrid technology. Batteries, hydrogen, synfuels, dynamos, air compression tanks have all been discussed. Anyone hoping for the convenience of instant energy, like that contained within a gallon of gasoline, is going to have to rethink their usage patterns.

      This intermittent demand cycle is why battery technology will become even more important. Lead acid may even make a comeback. If you think about it, we’re all running hybrids even now. If the basic definition of a hybrid is to provide energy type translation, chemical to heat to electricity to motive and every combination in between, then we’re using the sun as our original nuclear energy source, converting to light then to chemical through photosynthesis then back to heat, to motive etc.

      We’ll just need to build more exotic hybrids.

      +Simon Derricutt, I recommend “Deep Future” by Curt Stager, where in it, the author estimates that our current global warming trend will hold off the next ice age – to humanity’s benefit of course, humans don’t much thrive during ice ages. Given the choice, I’ll take global warming any day.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Anony (anony mouse?) – I agree with the necessity for energy storage. Most methods have quite large losses associated or need the chemicals to be replaced at intervals. The only one I can think of that doesn’t is capacitative storage. With buck-boost regulators on a chip, this system has gone from painful to use to dead easy, and multi-farad capacitors are available to replace batteries for low-drain uses – you probably have one if your PC is fairly recent.

        Pure water is an insulator (to a point) and has a dielectric constant of around 60. Using aluminium foil separated by a porous sheet (such as paper or geotextile) and dumped in pure water you can get amazing values of capacitor, but only up to a voltage of around 0.6V, after which some electrolysis can take place which spoils it somewhat. With 20 of these in series you can store 12V very cheaply. Maybe use a few more since most 12V systems are actually 13.8V or above… check your supply. Too heavy for a car, but maybe ideal for a house since you’ll never need to replace anything. For me it’s one of those projects that is waiting till I get the time, but someone on here may have a pressing need for such a thing.

        I remember 30-odd years ago the scientists warning that we were about to enter an ice age again. Since they were working from estimated data and not enough real knowledge as to how this chaotic system works, maybe it’s not that surprising they were wrong. Today there’s a lot more knowledge and better computer modelling, but it seems that slight measurement errors can throw the models wildly off-course. Bottom line here is that we still don’t know enough to fiddle with the climate, but we’re still geoengineering on a large scale. Yes I think that we need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere on such a large scale, but what’s there may be there for the next 2 millennia. This drives the need to get some form of nuclear power in general use and LENR seems safest to me. The only way to get a new clean energy source accepted and in use is to make it so cheap it’s a no-brainer for everyone. Making laws and carbon-credit-swaps really doesn’t do the job – it needs to be obviously profitable to use the green option. That is why I’ve jumped on this particular bandwagon – it seems to have the best chance of actually delivering, even if I have to deliver it myself. The physics is believable, the experiments are sufficiently replicated, and the only problem is repeatability and control – it’s now a technical problem. The more people working on it trying out different ideas, the more likely it is that one of us will nail these problems. Maybe Rossi already has….

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        “I doubt that LENR will be a direct replacement for the balance of energy sources in use today.”

        LENR represents a cost savings of over 90% compared to the energy source in use today. You can bet mankind will switch very fast to save that kind of money. The only reason to postpone is ossification and ignorance. Funny how people’s minds clear pretty fast when they are thinking about money though.

        No doubt there will be some machinery that will be a hold over from when fossil fuel was King, but they will be more anachronistic than modern or practical.

      • Anony Mole Says:

        +Brad Arnold, no doubt you’re right. Such a novel source of energy will usher in a flurry of innovation which will most likely allow all kinds of direct use of LENR cores. Initially though, direct replacement of energy source A with energy source B (LENR) will not generally be possible. And that hybrids will need to become the norm.

        If the whole LENR base physics process is anything like the development of the silicon transistor, then we might get to enjoy a Moore like law, Rossi’s Law – the size of LENR cores will halve every 18 months while the efficiency doubles.

  4. Bob Says:

    I think that devices will be left on all the time for instant power. Cars, trucks, furnaces, everything will just be running and the need for battery or storage of the technology will go away. I was thinking about the heat issue of what all this vented heat will do to the atmosphere, but we have to remember all the heat we generate from existing automobiles, homes, factories will be replaced with this technology, so it may not be so bad. I nice model of new verses old heat sounds like a great subject for academia, it they can be trusted. I’m don’t believe in “global warming”, I don’t think we have any idea what is real. It has been shown that the data was cooked and that big hockey stick of warming wasn’t real. Just recently the new government data was given out and it showed that the earth had cooled 1 degree in the last ten years.
    We may need pollution to stave off the next ice age, maybe the extra heat by all the LENR (if the sum heat is more) may help in this regard. It will be good to remove pollution as clean air is good for health, but I’m not convinced we need to do it for climate purposes.

    Low cost transportation brings some new wrinkles to mankind. It should be possible to build planes, large and small that run for extended periods of time without refueling. It will be possible to fly around the world in your little LENR piper cub without refueling. This ability does bring problems with it though. A terrorist can fly whatever he wants from wherever he is without a problem. Drug smugglers will be able to build sophisticated submarines to deliver their goods. With every advance the ability to use it for bad is also enabled. We need to think through many of these issues and try to get ahead of the impacts, not just react after they occur.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      You guys are really struggling awfully hard on this slow start-up time problem. What will probably happen is that we will figure this out and cut the start-up time to minutes or even seconds.

    • brucefast Says:

      “I was thinking about the heat issue of what all this vented heat will do to the atmosphere”

      I find this line of reasoning a bit puzzling in all honesty. The global warming crowd has never suggested that heat generated is causing global warming. Rather, they are hyper-focused on the “greenhouse effect”, the theory that the CO2 in the air acts like a heat reflector.

      If heat generated appeared to be the issue, I am sure we would have heard an earful. LENR technology will eliminate the CO2 issue altogether. If there is truth to global warming theory, this should vastly overwhelm any “heat effects” of the LENR devices.

      • Bob Says:

        I think its a valid question, what happens if we have billions of units creating heat 24/7-365. This has never been done before and could be an environmental affect. Sure, its not the CO2 warming affect, but something to be aware of as everything that affects our lives. My gut tells me its a non issue, but like everything that is done in mass, the long term affects should be understood. As I said, I don’t think its an issue, but long term simulations, you never know.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Here is a very gruff set of figures. According to Wikipedia, the Earth receives 1.74 X 10^17 watts from the Sun, or 174 petawatts. (I never thought that I would live to see the day that I would write “petawatts” in all seriousness in my life.) If everyone on Earth, currently, had a 10 Kw E-Cat going 24/7, without worrying about how some of the heat would be used to make electricity and motion, since they end up as heat eventually anyway, then we-all would be creating 7 X 10^13 watts, or 70 terawatts (ditto on the terawatts). This is one part per 2485.71 of what the Sun showers on us.

        What a coincidence that that 2485.71 number is also close to the ratio of the total atmosphere to CO2. [TA/CO2]

        Hopefully, there will eventually be a way to turn the buggers down and even off and quickly back on. Although 1 in 2486 is not bad, it still is high enough to be of some slight concern.

        But, big cities are going to be even more of a hot house than they are now.

        By the way, even if they are used for cooling, the total net heat is still 10 Kw for an air conditioner powered by a 10 Kw E-Cat.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – spot on. Also given that a lot of those people were already using their 10KW electricity but got it by burning coal, actually the result should be less of a problem than currently. Given the clear, non-polluted skies at night, more heat will be radiated to space than at present, too.

      • Bob Says:

        Thanks for walking through the numbers Roger. It appears it shouldn’t be a big problem right away and as Simon pointed out the clear skies will radiate more into space, so it shouldn’t be a big deal.
        Having agreed with that, there will be many new uses of this technology, such as big desalinization plants all over the world, the year round farming heating of crops. With cheap energy the usage could easily double or triple. Conservation, green design, why bother. The future will change in a big way wit this and it would be great to spot the problems before it becomes a panic.
        My god, I sound like an environmentalist, the people I generally dislike.

  5. Brad Arnold Says:

    For those interested – here is the scientific paper that cited heat accumulation as a major source of global warming:

    In the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming, Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Lulea University of Technology in Sweden have come up with a remarkable finding that completely changes the way we understand global warming. By the way, the article “Global energy accumulation and net heat emission” is peer reviewed (in other words, it is credible science).

    The scientist’s calculations show that three fourths of accumulated heat is from heat emissions. In other words, most of the global warming is from heat emissions, not from increased levels of greenhouse gasses in the air.

    The IPCC stated that the probability that global warming was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions is over 90%. Instead, the heat our power plants, motors, and furnaces put into the environment could be at least as significant as the greenhouse gas they emit into the air.

    Among the startling implications of this major change to the theory of global warming is nuclear power. Although nuclear power has a small carbon footprint, it will not slow down global warming because it produces heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Brad – I’m not subscribed to this journal (so can’t read the paper) but the abstract is at from 2009. The IPCC papers, I assume, are also internally peer-reviewed.

      It is definitely an interesting correlation, but note also that since most of the energy use generated CO2 which the biosphere was unable to assimilate, the inference may be spurious. Statistical correlations can be very useful tools but can also be mis-interpreted. I’m sure I don’t need to go find examples of this to belabour the point – you’ll have seen enough of them.

      It looks like the consensus of scientific opinion is that if global temperatures rise by more than 2°C, then we shall see more extremes of weather. In engineering terms this is a rise from around 283K to 285K (global average) – a difference of around 0.7% in the balance of energy-in (from the sun and our energy use) and energy-out (what the Earth radiates into space). I had a chat with Ken Caldiera a while back about the worth of changing the albedo of cities and roads by painting them white and thus reflecting more heat away. His response was that since only 1% of the land area is built-up, then the result would be small for the expense. If that 1% has an albedo of around 20% and we can raise it to say 70% by painting it white, then this would change the heat-input by 0.5% – could be worth a degree globally and more in the big cities. Maybe it’s worth buying shares in whitewash now, before the rush.

      With clearer skies from using LENR, more heat will be radiated without any such paint-job. This may be enough to remove the problem from the critical list. I hope so, since I don’t see any better prospects at the moment. Sky mirrors to stop the radiation from reaching the Earth are going to need cheap spaceflight in order to launch them, anyway.

      IMHO, peer-reviewing just means that a few more people agree with the idea before it is published and then a lot of other people get to read it and decide whether it is good science or not. Even a consensus of scientific opinion can be wrong. For me, the peer-reviewing process thus adds some credibility but the proof is when it is turned into technology that works and that I can buy.

      • Alain Says:

        at last some seems to realize that fighting agains black carbon (soot) will be much more short term good on health, and long term efficient on climate.
        soot seems to be the key of glaciers melting and icecap melting…

        fighting against soot could be the “no regret” measure that can seduce believers and skeptics of AGW.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Peer reviewing is SUPPOSED to be saying that the peers think that the science was done correctly, NOT that the peers agree with the intent or the conclusions.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – thanks for the clarification. I’ve never tried publishing in one of those journals. My reports were for Company use, and they had to be absolutely correct as otherwise we’d be losing money, sometimes a frightening amount. At times it was someone getting sacked – worse from my perspective. Failure Analysis, like forensics in general, has to be irreproachable.

        That does explain why I have read some peer-reviewed papers I can’t accept….

  6. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Alain – d’accord

  7. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Brad – further thoughts about your heat-accumulation report:
    From both weather forecasting and personal experience, if we have a clear night in winter it is more likely to have a frost, but if it is cloudy then the temperature will not fall as low. The daily fluctuation in air temperature, as well as the seasonal one, also implies that the Earth loses heat quite quickly, of the order of ten degrees Celsius over 12 hours (very approximate, this) so if the Sun stopped giving us the 174 petawatts (Roger Bird’s figures on Jan 21) then we would freeze to death in less than a week – even Bruce would notice the cold (his weather yesterday was -31°C and light snow).

    Given this rate of heat loss, even an unreasonably large power use of 1% of the sun’s input (Roger says 10KW each comes to about 0.04% of the sun’s input power) would be radiated off quickly as the planet reaches its new equilibrium temperature. So at 1%, that would be 7 billion people each using around 250KW each 24/7-365. That is a lot of energy. The new temperature equilibrium would be somewhere around 2.83°C above the current temperature (actually above the temperature it would be if we stopped all power use totally).

    Unless there is some means that the Earth can store all the heat used since 1880 without radiating it, when it radiates the day’s heat away happily each night, the figures just don’t stack up. On the other hand, Alain’s point about soot and the consensus view of CO2, methane and water-vapour giving a greenhouse effect do make sense to me.

    How much power would each person use 24/7-365? I personally use an average of around 1KW in electricity and maybe another 1 or 2 in burning wood. My driving is normally not excessive, maybe add another KW on average. I fly to the UK now and again – maybe another KW there. I will work these figures out better later on, I promise. That makes my personal use around 5KW. If everyone did the same, that would make a difference of maybe 0.06°C in the world without us as with us, and that’s pretty well below experimental error when it comes to measuring climate.

    So in answer to the original point of “what if everyone on the planet had a personal 10KW eCat running all the time”, the answer is that the world would be around 0.12°C warmer than if everyone used zero power. There is of course a whole raft of approximations in this, one of them being that a person emits around 250 watts just by living.

    Since that eCat power would be replacing power normally produced by other means, I’d say that the problem is so small compared to variations in the sun’s output and the wobbles in the Earth’s orbit taking us closer in or farther away that we probably don’t need to worry about it. In the meantime, less CO2 and less soot on the glaciers would give us a cooling effect over time.

    • Bob Says:

      Simon, here is an interesting article on the US government wanting to paint the roofs all white. It also brings up the subject of heat Islands, which could be a big issue in years to come.

      I think we need to look at all these things, but I’m still in the camp that isn’t sure G;lobal warming is real, especially with the new government figures that state the temperature has decreased by 1 degree in the last 10 years. I just don’t think science knows the answer and we need not spend money needlessly until the answer is known.

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      I subscribe to the theory of rapid change to a stable state that Lovelock advocates. In other words, the most stable state is cold. A much less stable state is what we are currently in (the Holocene). Current climate models don’t consider either ecosystem collapse or the Earth emitting GHG when it warms. I predict what we will see (if geo-engineering is deployed) is a quick switch to the “hot state.” I have scientific paper to back this up, but these two quotations from Lovelock will hopefully give you a sketchy idea of what I am referring to:

      “Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them.” –Dr James Lovelock’s lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. ’07

      “The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state.” –Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

  8. Brad Arnold Says:

    Sorry, if geoengineering is NOT deployed.

    Also, here is supporting evidence of the above (the two scientific studies are too long to cite here):

    Here is what Climate Code Red says:

    –Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.

    –There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to “thermal inertia”, or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.

    –If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don’t increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).

    –Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don’t increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.

    NASTY; I only wish everyone understood how close we are to an extinction event (i.e. a bottleneck for humans as well as everything else). LENR is going to save us.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I completely disagree with all this AGW garbage. There is nothing magical about CO2 that is not true also for H20. H20 has a very strong reputation for retaining and storing heat. H2O is jillions of times more plentiful than CO2. The [Sun cycle water cycle cosmic ray flux] theory of global climate change fits the data much better. Occam is spinning in his grave.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        “Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a ’70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That’s because — news flash! — climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference.” –David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008

        The science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming. It has become well established that other gases, such as methane, in the atmosphere also are greenhouse gases.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Brad Arnold, that is bullshit. The first wave of AGW skeptics were zombies, conservatives afraid of change and people with a financial investment in keeping energy the same. The second wave is made up of people like me who looked at the data and decided that the Sun-Water-Cosmic Rays theory was a better match for the data than the CO2 theory. Hey, Brad, what happened to the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period? Or did the CO2 liars invent some “entity” (to use Occam’s words) to make the LIA and the MWP problem go away?

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible

        There have been claims that cosmic rays could have contributed significantly to the global warming over the past century. According to a new study, that is not the case. Instead, during the last 50 years, cosmic rays seemed to have caused warming of only about 0.002°C – a negligible amount compared to observed warming.

        Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds

        A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small.

  9. Anony Mole Says:

    Sitemaster, is there any way to reorganize some of these posts? They’re great content, but off base from the primary thread. They need to be moved into a “Impact of NFE on world climate” thread.

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      Mr Mole,

      While I agree that they seem off-topic, the natural evolution was from LENR start up time, to waste heat from LENR, to LENR/global warming. Frankly, I’ve seen many threads go much more afield, especially with ad hominem attacks. Your complaint says more about your need for order than about the legitimacy tangencial nature of this thread’s discussion.

    • brucefast Says:

      Antony, “Sitemaster, is there any way to reorganize some of these posts?”

      Not that I know of. The blog is wordpress published on the wordpress servier. I don’t know how to reassign a comment. In any case, I do think that this rabbit trail isn’t far from the LENR equation, so I’m happy to let it dominate this thread.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Unlike AGW which is difficult to prove either way, the LENR business will be proved soon enough, or else many of us will just grow tired of not getting proof and go do something else.

  10. Bob Norman Says:

    Brad, I don’t believe a word of the doom. I am cautious of mother nature, but I think people and data are being manipulated. IPCC data is very suspect as are the formulas. It has been proven the books were cooked and data manipulated to further the agenda. Here is a link with a different perspective on the issue.

    Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto accord, they no longer believe. The science has not proven such a warming exists, especially to justify the heavy economic tole. The readjusted data now shows a cooling trend is at hand and our anti CO2 stand could accelerate us into an Ice Age. I personally don’t believe that either.

    When I lived in San Jose I got a map of the temperature stations and started visiting them, it was a joke. Some thermometers were located between two huge air conditioners, some were on asphalt next to a tin sided building. The data is so flawed you could plus or minus the readings to get what ever you want.

    We are in a huge system that is affected by many things. The sun activity has been shown to have a much bigger affect than thought. We revolve on a changing orbit around the sun. We loose much more heat out of the atmosphere than previously thought. Gama rays have found to affect our temperatures more than anticipated.

    When funding relies on certain findings for future funding it amazes me how the data is shaped. Universities love the grants, but won’t fully share the data. Poor countries love it because they get money an an edge in competing in the world market.

    The US restricts coal and shuts down power plans because of CO2 emissions, but we export our coal to China and they use it and have cheap energy. The insanity of our policies is beyond belief.

    I respect your opinion, but mine run counter to yours. We need to keep looking.

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      I’ve gone around and around with plenty of people on global warming. I am just happy that there is a new energy technology that will use the invisible hand of the market (as opposed to legislation) to force the dramatic decrease of GHG emissions.

      Although, ironically, if LENR too rapidly replaces coal, then the short lived sun dimming pollution coal (plus other fossil fuel burning technologies) throws into the sky will decrease too rapidly, and we will be looking at a destructive rate of temperature increase:

      Ecosystems go into quick decline when warming reaches a certain threshold. Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that more ecosystems collapse as warming speeds up:

      If the warming is 0.1 °C per decade, 5 percent of ecosystems will collapse.

      If the warming is 0.3 °C per decade, 15 percent of ecosystems will collapse.

      If the rate exceeds 0.4 °C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed.

      Reference: Leemans og Eickhout, 2004, Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change, Global Environmental Change 14, 219–228.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Strangely, I’m in agreement with both Brad and Bob on this, but mostly with Brad. Brad quotes from Lovelock, who in my opinion has the best grasp of how things really work in the biosphere (though it has been promoted as postulating a real deity, this is not the case – he used computer modelling for the interactions). The more biodiversity, the more stable the world will be, and so we need to stop changing the conditions so rapidly to reduce the stress we are imposing upon the system. The other studies Brad quotes, though they seem totally acceptable to me, are based, as Bob says, on somewhat flaky data that is only with the advent of the recent satellite measurements becoming reasonably accurate and reliable.

        In some ways it depends on which dataset feels believable and what you think of the people doing the calculations and projections. As Bob says, unfortunately you also have to look at who sponsored the research, as most researchers need sponsorship and producing a report that goes against the sponsor’s interests may well cause the researcher to look for a new job. As an amusing example of this, there was research published about a year ago that said that eating cheese just before bed does not give you bad dreams, just possibly more vivid ones but better sleep (sponsored by the Cheese Producers Federation in UK if I remember rightly).

        In truth, it’s such a big system with so many variables that we cannot currently know all the interactions, but I do think that Greenhouse Gases and pollution in general are rising too quickly and that too fast a change is not a good idea. Different reports over the years have said that (a) 25% of the CO2 in the air comes from cement production, (b) 25% of the CO2 production is from transport, (c) 25% of the CH4 production is from termites and (d) 25% of the CH4 production is from cattle (they seem fond of 25%). These figures were from the BBC – no article numbers to quote here. So cement production is bad? Actually, it’s little-known that concrete absorbs CO2 for at least 20 years after it is set, so maybe concrete is not so bad as the production figures suggest. I have not seen the figures to say exactly how much CO2 is absorbed – I don’t think the research has been done anyway. Another unknown.

        I’d recommend a book by Michael Crichton “State of Fear”. Although it’s a novel and a good read, the background research was well-done and it is annotated like a scientific paper. His postulate is that governments use fear of something (communists, Cold War, Nazis etc.) to keep the populace compliant to being controlled. Currently fear of being blown-up mid-flight means that each of us submits to long security queues at the airports, for example, and we happily allow Government intrusion into our lives for security reasons. Recently on Euronews, it was stated that although 10 out of 2500 terrorist plots in Europe were Fundamental Islamist, half the available antiterrorist man-hours were spent on Islamist groups.

        In summary, the climate data we do have is only going to be accurate and reliable from around 2010 – older data is either suspect or inferred from other evidence. Older data is regularly massaged to try to remove the bias that the researcher expects is inherent in it – not necessarily bad science, just the researcher doing the best he/she can with flawed data. On the other hand the greenhouse effect is well-attested science, and the gases that produce it are increasing in our atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove them. Heat production per se is not really an issue until we get to many times the energy use per person than is currently the case. Heat absorption caused by soot on ice is a reasonable cause for that ice being warmer than if it were unpolluted, and when the ice goes the bare rock or water will absorb more heat from the sun giving positive feedback to the system. If you accept these statements, then it is reasonable to say that massive use of LENR, and replacing other fuels with it, can only be good for the environment and may be enough to save the world as we know it. The fact that it will also be so much cheaper is an added bonus and may also save our economies at the same time – but that is another discussion. I wish I had an answer to Brad’s point about Global Dimming decreasing as we pollute less, but that may take, as he says, geoengineering if it proves too much.

    • Bob Says:

      Brad and Simon, I think this is a bigger issue than we will resolve here. I have studied this for years and have my leanings and its obvious that you have also studied it and have different conclusions. I think its going to take a lot of work, data taking and time to put this to bed. I have argued this subject for months on a chat room with neither side giving an inch. I don’t care to repeat that exercise as I believe it to be futile. Let us hope that CF is real and this becomes a non argument in the coarse of a few years.
      One of my biggest push-backs comes from the whole carbon trading thing. If its world threatening money shouldn’t be changing hands and it should be done because its right. Greed makes people do less than honorable things.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bob – the reason we maybe don’t agree on some of this is that the available data is equivocal, and we are assigning maybe different levels of trust to the various reports we read. Let’s call it “Climate Change” rather than the closed “Global Warming” that presupposes the answer.

        In the last 10 years here is Southwest France we’ve seen extremes of weather greater than in the last century. Heatwaves, rainfall, freezing, winds, overcast for a month solid. The weather is less stable than it used to be – this is personal experience and I do tend to believe this more than a scientific report in the news, no matter how well-attested. I therefore believe something is happening with the climate. I’m pruning my vines even shorter than before in order to cope with this during the coming year.

        Since this change has affected us personally and will possibly affect us much more, it is reasonable for each of us to try to find an answer and maybe do something about it if possible. Strong opinions should be expected, but we need to hold a little less tightly to them and allow some change as new information crops up. We can’t all have the right answer, after all, though some of us may be closer than others.

        I think we all agree that some form of clean, non-polluting energy like LENR is going to reduce the impact human civilisation has on the climate, and this can only be a good thing. Even if we don’t know enough about the way the climate system works then it’s clear to me at least that changing its variables less should produce a lesser effect.

        I definitely agree about the carbon trading problem – so much room there for fraud and a lot of money floating around. If LENR is as cheap as we expect, then the simple profit motive (always reliable) will dictate that it takes over from burning fossil fuels.

        I shall be working on making LENR cheap, available and public knowledge. That will be my contribution to the Climate debate….

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I want to add that LENR will remove the AGW part of the puzzle of climate change, whether AGW is real or not. We will be able to say, “ah, see, AGW had nothing to do with it” or “ah, see, AGW really was the cause.” LENR will simplify the puzzle.

    • brucefast Says:

      The question of anthropocentric global warming may quickly prove irrelevant as the e-cat world takes over. Once we cease to be bombarding the atmosphere with CO2, the question of whether we were hurting the earth by it or not will just slip away.

      As far as, “Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto accord, they no longer believe.” is concerned, I think this a bit simplistic. Our current “George Bush” conservative government does not believe in global warming. I would say that the majority of Canadians do, however.

  11. Roger Bird Says:

    Please explain to me why the CO2 molecule is so magically important and the H2O molecule, which is very good at storing heat, and which is so much more plentiful than the CO2 molecule, is just not very important. Water is so much more plentiful than CO2 that H2O lays around in these monster oceans trillions upon trillions of times more plentiful than CO2. Yet H2O does not play any part in their lying calculations.

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      I am not dismissing H2O gas as a global warming chemical, what I am saying is that CO2 and CH4 (among others) are too. Did you ever hear of “the miracle of compounded interest?” Perhaps then you can understand feedbacks. I’m talking about the reflective quality of glaciers vs non-glaciers, or eco-systems vs ecosystem collapse. Man, you really have to have drank the cool-aid to be so obsessed with “cosmic rays” and “H2O” to not understand the relationship between climate warming and greenhouse gases.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Brad, the more kool-aid I drink, the better I feel, so the more kool-aid I want to drink, so the better I feel, so ….. I understand positive feedback loops. But the system during the Little Ice Age was relatively stable for a long time; so there must be huge negative feedback pressure to keep it stable.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        “Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows, the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population.” -Wikipedia

        No such corresponding increase in solar activity (i.e. cosmic rays) has been detected to explain the recent warming.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        It is my understanding of the theory that cosmic rays per se do not increase but the amount of cosmic rays that reach cloud top increases because the solar wind decreases. My understanding is that the solar wind decreases when there are less sunspots, like during the Little Ice Age, especially during the Meander Minimum, when things go their coldest.

        I am just repeating a theory that makes a lot of sense to me and a lot of other people. A small percent increase in some gas that is already one part per 2400 of the atmosphere, roughly, does not make sense to me and a lot of other people.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        We are currently in a interglacial period called the Holocene. Interglacial periods are not stable, and are much rarer than the more stable glacial periods:

        “The Holocene warming is an interglacial period and there is no reason to believe that it represents a permanent end to the current ice age. However, the current global warming may result in the Earth becoming warmer than the Eemian Stage, which peaked at roughly 125,000 years ago and was warmer than the Holocene.”

        “An Interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial has persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,400 years ago.”

        “During the 2.5 million year span of the Pleistocene, numerous glacials, or significant advances of continental ice sheets in North America and Europe have occurred at intervals of approximately 40,000 to 100,000 years. These long glacial periods were separated by more temperate and shorter interglacials.”


      • Roger Bird Says:

        And from the way that I read the graphs at sites other than Wikipedia, it seems to me that we are at the end of the warm period and are overdue for another Ice Age. I’ll take global warming any day over an ice age.

      • brucefast Says:

        Brad, I am having a problem as I look at global warming. The LENR debacle has taught me that scientists run in packs, and happily ignore gobs of evidence. I therefore must hold the “consensus” of scientific opinion with a loose hand.

        I live in the sub-arctic of Canada. Global warming is clearly happening. 30 years ago there were no deer up here because winters were too cold. Now there are enough deer here to hunt. Global warming is clearly happening.

        I went to the Columbia ice fields, the headwaters of the Columbia river recently. It was quite the hike getting to the glacier. I had been there 30 years previous, and the glacier was very much larger. Global warming is clearly happening.

        Then I noticed these stakes in the ground marking dates. They went back into the 1900s. This glacier has been on a retreat for a century. Then my brother provided me with a picture of petrified tree stumps that are appearing as the ice subsides. Now, I didn’t see the stumps. Someone may have faked the photograph. But it seems to me that this glacier used to be a forest. When? Probably since the last great ice age. It is highly doubtful that the tree stumps would have survived through the ice age. The “little warm period” is the likely candidate. The “little warm period” was pretty darn warm at the Columbia ice fields.

        Global warming, yup. Anthropocentric, probably, but our only real source of knowledge about it is a bunch of scientists who just lost a lot of trust. After all, they have been actively ignoring the LENR evidence produced by their colleagues for the last 30 years.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – personal experience can be trusted. What someone else tells me may be wrong for any number of reasons, with simply being mistaken the most benign of them. I agree with your summation.

        I follow Heisenberg. Uncertainty rules, and I’m at varying degrees of sureness of what I know. In Quantum theory, there are no zero probabilities – I think there aren’t any 100% ones either (but I’m not sure about that!). The scientists who have been canning LENR since 1989 either do not understand this or feel threatened that their hard-won knowledge is not actually true. I’ve noticed that, with a lot of people, if you suggest that what they know isn’t correct, they get very defensive and sometimes aggressive, as if their self-worth is tied up together with what they were taught.

        All the data we are given as truth about prehistoric times is inferred. No-one was there to take the measurements – we really Don’t Know. It’s an educated guess and if it’s wrong, well, it doesn’t really change anything, does it? If they are stating that something is xxx age from Carbon dating, this implies that the level of C14 in the environment was known at that time – and no-one was there to measure it so it must be inferred.

        Given all that, I’m still inclined to accept most of it unless it matters to me. Having cheap energy does matter to me, and the benefits that LENR will bring are worth discussing so that we are at least ready. Normally this role is taken by SF writers (the “Dreamer Fithp”) but they seem to have missed this one so it’s up to us.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – as far as I know (and someone here may have the figures) the main effect water has is as clouds. These reflect heat to space from their upper surfaces and reflect heat back to the ground at their lower surfaces. The varying amounts of cloud day/night will make massive changes to the temperatures at ground level – this is personal experience. Although water is also a greenhouse gas, the amount in the upper atmosphere is, as far as I know, not varying. As such, people are looking at what IS varying and trying to make correlations.

      As I’ve said before, correlations may be spurious and divert the observer from what is really happening. My best guess at the moment is that CO2 is having an effect on global temperatures, and that it is acidifying the oceans so that shellfish etc. have more problems making their shells. Reducing the amount we produce can only be a good thing.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Also, Roger, small amounts/variations of something may be important. Lovelock made his money from a machine that measured CFC concentrations to very low parts-per-billion levels. He said at the time that such a low concentration could have no effect – a statement he later regretted. It was found that CFCs catalyse the breakdown of Ozone and thus increase the amount of UV rays reaching the surface of the Earth. Yes, we don’t really know if that variation in the ozone layer is natural or not since measurements don’t go back that far, but CFCs are now regulated (read: mostly banned) so hopefully that problem (hole in the Ozone layer) will go away in time.

  12. Anony Mole Says:

    Technological progress in maximizing efficiencies may suffer with NFE.

    • Why optimize coefficient of drag when it no longer matters how ugly and blocky your vehicle is (think Scion)?

    • Why worry about drive train friction and rolling resistance when you’ve got a continuous stream of nearly free energy to push your vehicle as fast as you want?

    • Will we cease optimizing heating, cooling, insulation when we can just flip a switch to engage a couple more LENR cores to overcome the losses?

    • Will the efforts of CARB be washed away with the surplus of nearly free fuels and electrons?

    • Will LENR usher in a new era of energy wastefulness and gluttony?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Anony Mole, I guarantee that there will be energy gluttony. But remember, friction will make machines failure sooner, no matter how free the energy is.

    • brucefast Says:

      “Why optimize coefficient of drag when it no longer matters how ugly and blocky your vehicle is”

      Well, people will still like pretty over “ugly and blocky”. However, drag coefficient will no longer be the criteria, beauty and utility will.

      “Why worry about drive train friction and rolling resistance when you’ve got a continuous stream of nearly free energy to push your vehicle as fast as you want?”

      I think Roger Bird said it very well. High friction = quick breakdown. People will still want reliable, and quiet.

      ” Will the efforts of CARB be washed away with the surplus of nearly free fuels and electrons?”

      By CARB I presume you mean “California Air Resources Board” or similar. All clean air efforts will be obsolete because vehicles just won’t pollute.

      “Will LENR usher in a new era of energy wastefulness and gluttony?”

      Absolutely, yes it will. Nothing is perfect, and people are what people are.

    • Anony Mole Says:

      OK then, how about other advancements which will be lost which had originally followed the progression of “dwindling resources / improved technology”? Such as the recent push back against building bigger and bigger homes? Smaller and more efficient was beginning to be the “green” path. Or will the “green” path go all nickel colored with the advent of LENR?

      My point was that there are whole aspects of engineering and development dedicated to reducing energy usage; geared toward optimal energy efficiency. What will happen to these disciplines when LENR goes main stream?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Anony Mole, there will be an enormous field of engineering fun for converting LENR into electricity and motion and other forms of energy.

        There will also be efforts to make it smaller.

  13. Brad Arnold Says:

    “Global warming, yup. Anthropocentric, probably, but our only real source of knowledge about it is a bunch of scientists who just lost a lot of trust. After all, they have been actively ignoring the LENR evidence produced by their colleagues for the last 30 years.”

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Group think- yes. Slow realization of a phenomena-yes. Methodical and painfully slow investigation -yes, and yes. Misunderstanding of a phenomena closely examined over the course of decades -no. Don’t fool yourself with false equivalence: anthropocentric global warming-a no brainer. As far as trust in scientists and the scientific community: if anything they are too deliberate (frankly, it is maddening how slow and dogmatic they are).

    But like the saying goes: “It isn’t what you don’t know, it is what you know that just ain’t so.”

  14. Bob Norman Says:

    I think that people will need to change their way of thinking about energy. People will keep their homes warmer in winter and cooler in the summer. Cheaper construction or homes will evolve, why pay for expensive insulation when you can just dial up a bit more heat.
    Cars will once again be built with style, not the look alike styling we have today. I’m hoping cars will once again be easily recognized as to make, based on style. Big SUV types will give people what they want, not what they have to tolerate.
    Comfort in life will be the order of the day, people will need to learn not to feel guilty for having a warm home in the winter or drive a big “Styled” auto.
    Keep the car running at all times, no more getting into hot or cold cars, everything will be kept comfortable year around.
    Maybe all the excess oil can be used to build plastic homes, construction material will need to be rethought.
    I’m sure fights will break out about conservation. People will worry about the ocean being drained when all the desalinization plants start to be built. Their will be many issues and everything will need to be rethought and analyzed from a new perspective.

    • brucefast Says:

      “Their will be many issues and everything will need to be rethought and analyzed from a new perspective.”

      I really think that we can’t accurately see what some of these issues will be. I am still very worried about the dead zones in the oceans. I don’t see how this technology will directly improve that situation. I bet other challenges will arise that we are not yet anticipating. I wonder for instance whether there will be a boom in off-road vehicles such as quads and snowmobiles. Will these things create more trails, destroying the environment? Who knows. However, stuffing the air full of a whole bunch of junk every time we go to work will be gone. Though there will be new issues, some of the biggest of the old issues will be gone.

    • Anony Mole Says:

      It will probably take decades to come to such a point, but, as you say +Bob Norman, no doubt people will think differently about energy usage. Agreed. But it has been my belief, developed over years of reading and armchair analysis, that lavish decadence, in any realm, generally sours and turns a society in the throes of such squandering into something less than wholesome. Why turn off the lights if it costs nothing to run them 24/7? Why regulate any energy consuming behavior if it’s all free? Doesn’t that strike you as just a little corrupt?

      Again, I have to remind myself that this continues to be pure wild speculation, but I can see humanity easily embracing such decadence and not batting an eyelash while doing so. Now, let it be known that I’m no righteous energy greenie. I’m no ultra-right-wing conformist either. Beer – goooood! But envisioning the future I can picture such a gluttonous path and wonder if we’ll be able to remain rational around such energy wealth.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Anony, what you just said is my point. You feel that such extravagant use of energy is decadent and corrupt. To the contrary, I see nothing wrong with it. If its next to free, everyone will have it so people will quickly revert to that being the normal way to live. Its technology being used to make life better. Knowing human nature, we will quickly find new things to be the excess that only the rich can afford.

        I worry that everything getting cheaper, mainly energy and food, that the work week will be reduced and the work ethic further eroded. The secondary affects may change the world more. I still see a lot of people dropping out and using cheap energy to live of the land, that will encompass huge social changes.

        I told a bunch of younger people about the technology and what may be coming to get their reaction. Almost to a person their immediate reaction was that they would quit working as soon as they could buy some land. They wanted to drop out and live off the land. Just think what that means. The tax base is eroded, contributions to Social Security will be none to minimal. Ecological affects could be good or bad, depending on how its done.

        Usually you don’t see the trend until your in the middle of it and then its hard to do it effectively. If nothing else, we live in interesting times.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bob Norman, remember that primitive humans work about 3 hours per day to keep themselves in “groceries”. Perhaps the work ethic is greatly overrated.

        On the other hand, being involved in constructive or productive or uplifting activities can be nothing but good. I am thinking of meditation, selfless service, fitness, mountain climbing, Habitat For Humanity, studying calculus, writing books, playing soccer, visiting Scotland, sailing around the world, etc. etc. etc. etc.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Dear Anony Mole, I don’t have a single speculative neuron devoted to your idea that people will become energy gluttons and more corrupt. It is fact as far as I am concerned.

        However, I also see in my future-viewer the fact that some hopefully many people will not be burdened so much by financial worries. Spiritual efforts and selfless service will be more possible for people who are not burdened with financial worries and panicking to get enough food on the table.

        We also see, even today, something I don’t have a word for. People who go hiking when they don’t have to hike. People to climb mountains or run marathons who don’t need to do so. I would not call that corruption, but I also would not call that selfless service. We even today we see lots of people who do selfless service. There are many liberal politicians (whose politics I dislike) who don’t need to be in politics, and many of their relatives will testify by their lifestyles to what you are saying.

        America is already deeply corrupted. The big change is that we will become so rich that going without even a single meal will be unheard of. And, of course, without as much pollution, we will have fewer basketcases whose neurological systems have been destroyed.

  15. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Decadence and eroded work ethic… we’ve been heading to this for a while. One of my jobs (costing-down electronics manufacture) involved removing as much as possible of (boring) hand-assembly, as this made us more competitive with China where there are a lot of people doing such jobs at around 20% or less of the pay-rate in the UK. Result – less people employed. The tax-base has been diminishing for quite a while. If there are currently no plans to deal with this problem of increased manufacturing efficiency, we need them pretty soon. There are only so many people required to maintain and design the robots we’ll be using everywhere in the next 20 years or so, and the rest need something useful to do and money (whatever that becomes in future) to do it with. Job-sharing or other reduced-working-week ideas only go so far – to do a job well you need to be focussed on it for the majority of your time as others here will well know. For most of us, we are to a large extent defined by our jobs, and being jobless is damaging to our sense of self-worth. I’ve experienced this – when I was young I left one job and spent 8 months looking for another. I didn’t mind what. For one promising-looking job I was turned down since they said I had more qualifications than the MD of the company. So I have sympathy for and empathy with the jobless – it’s not a good state to be in.

    Maybe a lot longer education would help, but this does need to be a paid position (with penalties for not working at it) so that we can soak up the pool of otherwise-unemployed – maybe this will also further increase the rate of change of technology. Earlier “retirement” with much-reduced hours – we don’t want to totally lose all that experience in how to run a company/process, and the old-timers can feel useful still. There are jobs where a person is currently indispensable (nursing and other personal care come to mind) that will need people – not a job I’d enjoy. There will probably remain a hard core of “unemployable” people, and I don’t know what to do about them.

    In China and India there are a currently a lot of people who are poor, undereducated (not the same as unintelligent!) who get by doing poorly-paid manual labour. I assume this technology will affect them too, mainly by removing the only way they can make a living. The changes that could be OK if spread over several generations will be happening in decades instead, and this seems dangerous to me. That could cause social unrest on a scale of billions of people, and I think we are starting to see this in China at the moment.

    Hopefully the politicians are bright enough to have been planning for all this – it’s the job they chose so they do need to be proficient at it. My level of confidence in this is, unfortunately, lower than my confidence in Rossi getting his eCat out this year.

    On another note, Bruce, I might have the technology to make a flying car. I’ll run the experiments later this year. This would reduce the problem of roads proliferating, but might also bring problems of its own. Think of the number of bad drivers you see, and then imagine them flying! Personal world-wide flight would also increase the problem of international terrorism and smuggling.

  16. Anony Mole Says:

    So, perhaps gluttony and sloth increase, work ethics diminish, but the effort expended for survival will also be reduced allowing us to expand humanity’s existential horizons. After all, it was the discovery and development of farming that gave humanity the ability to create “free time” into which expanded crafts, manufacturing and the arts eagerly flowed. “Free time” gave us scientific study, technology, philosophy, and dozens of other higher minded pursuits. Maybe NFE will give us so much free time that humankind will re-engage its own evolution and evolve into the next version of ourselves. The singularity anyone?

  17. Bob Says:

    We have a country (US) where 49 percent of the people receive benefits from the government. Throw on top of this LENR technology that will be the biggest disruption in society and we have a recipe for total disruption of society. We have a dumbed down education system and a high drop out rate from high school, that translates to a work force not prepared to function in a high tech society. I believe we are at a tipping point and huge changes will be required.

    The technology will be incredibly disruptive short term, but with all our economic issues we will not be able to survive a major disruption.

    The government may understand the implications and try and hold it back, but it is something that once proven will not be held back, a free society will demand otherwise.

    This is one of the most exciting technologies to ever exist, at the same time the scariest development for its impact. I hope our leaders are up for whats about to happen.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      As I see it, it’s just about the same in the UK, but I think Germany and France are possibly a little bit better than the rest of Europe. I get the impression that Scandinavia in general will have the least disruption and the most benefit since they educate their people to a higher standard, maybe also the low population density helps.

      I think that in China and India they’ll see only a positive change. There are no benefits systems there, so NFE will simply make life easier and less polluting. They will manufacture all the LENR reactors they need, and sell them internally really cheaply at the $20 mark for the reactor and $2 for the 6-month refill. We will, of course, have to pay more ;<).

      Financial systems, which are based on the value of commodities, will be in turmoil for a while as the costs of energy get taken out of the selling prices.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Simon, I agree, but maybe Norway will get hit hard as they do much of the North sea oil and have built up huge piles of money. Their world could come crashing down, but like you said they are very educated so they will figure it out.

  18. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    An early application in the airline industry would be for an E-Cat/steam-motor driving the nose wheel of airliners while taxiing. Currently, taxiing A/C waste huge amounts of jet fuel. Of course later on, E-Cats could power turboprops or even jet engines.

  19. Bob Norman Says:

    One of the issues I wrestle with is what transportation methods will no longer make sense. Will trains be totally replaced by trucks when cost is taken out of the equation.
    Will Buses and commuter trains no longer be pushed by government as pollution is not an issue an there is no need to try and reduce it by mass transportation. Especially as people work more from home.
    With energy cost put of the equation and a simple technology. will society be able to have community cars, just take one when you need it. I doubt it, but its worth thinking about.

    With cheap fuel I wonder how much more time teenagers will spend on the road.

    • brucefast Says:

      The train will still offer the advantages of less machinery per ton/mile, and much less manpower per ton/mile. I don’t think the trains will be doomed at all.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I agree, we’ll always have trains for heavy freight.

      • Anony Mole Says:

        Railroads also have one often ignored advantage – they own the rights of way under their tracks. We look at rail as a 150 year old technology and in most cases that’s exactly what it is. But by owning the rights to the lanes of travel railroads could just as well build elevated tracks, 30 feet above the ground and use maglev bullet trains to push freight at airplane speeds around the country – with a much reduced collision/accident rate. If not this idea than something will allow rail to remain competitive – no doubt.
        Alain, I too see NFE promoting increased traffic. Crowded roads mean private roads (toll roads) will become popular again. Rail is the ultimate private road.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Pipelines could also be used for bullet freight. Pipelines may also own their right-o-way.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I don’t think that trains are completely doomed, but they will decrease a whole bunch.

        Large airplanes exist partly because they save fuel. I think that there will be more smaller planes and more smaller jumps. There used to be a large airline service from San Francisco International Airport to Oakland International Airport, about 8 miles across San Francisco Bay (I kid you not, sometime in the ’70s or ’80s, I kid you not again), and the mere fact that I am mentioning this as a novelty shows that it didn’t last very long. It will come back as being more normal. People will find it easier to commute via air from one part of a large metropolis to another, from Napa to San Jose, from Philadelphia to Morristown, New Jersey, from Dallas to Ft. Worth, from St. Paul to Minneapolis.

        Many of those short jumps will be helicopter flights, since airplanes will still take up so much runway space. Since our military will necessarily be reduced because we won’t have to protect the world’s oil supplies, many of our military helicopters will be sold to private interests in order to fulfill the need for these short jumps.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Railroads will lose their most lucrative cargo, coal & most bulk petroleum. Minerals, chemicals, and fertilizer will still be big.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bicycles will become more popular (but not a great deal) because people will not be assaulted by exhaust fumes. But there is still the danger issue, so the up tick will not be massive.

  20. Anony Mole Says:

    Taxation will be heavily impacted. Even now economical cars, EVs and hybrids are beginning to impact the federal DOT’s ability to fund road and bridge maintenance. State DOTs are even worse off. The gas tax is a major revenue stream for these organizations. DOTs are starting to consider and put in place mileage trackers and general road use taxes to help fund road costs. With GPS now standard in vehicles one thought is that states will use GPS records to bill drivers for miles driven. This would be unfortunate but some model will show up that allows a tax to be imposed on drivers.

    Consumption makes up so much of how a government imposes taxes on the populace that the removal of such a major consumption model – that of energy – will have serious repercussions. Will we be taxed on heat signatures? Nickel cartridges? LENR cores in use?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Some where else (apparently), I noted that there were no taxes on my utility bill, perhaps because of the fact that my utility is public.

      But the road tax, what is the difference? They already tax us via gasoline usage, and if that gets switched to mileage, what’s the difference?

      • Anony Mole Says:

        Gasoline tax is a perfect anonymous tax. A tax on consumption. Any other tax, aside from toll roads, would require more government intervention into our lives. Where you drove, when you drove would be recorded for billing purposes. That’s the difference. We’re already losing many of our freedoms – every phone call, txt msg, twitter, fb, g+ entry – even these posts, are all monitored by the FBI/NSA/HomelandSec. We are on the very cusp of constant surveillance. The Supreme Cort, thankfully, just struck down a request by law enforcement to track GPS without a warrant. Sure we need to balance taxation with services – but we need to remain ever vigilant to guard against such intrusions.

    • brucefast Says:

      I really think that this is just a management issue. I know that Americans tend to have a tax allergy, especially those of the GOP. But if we see a quid pro quo of services for our taxes, I think they are easier to pay. Roads will still be needed (unless the flying car seriously settles in) and will need maintenance. Some sort of fee for services, taxation, will be required to keep our roads going.

      In any case there is going to be a great accounting, and soon. When the dust settles from that, I think we will end up with a much higher expectation that governments live within their means. Hopefully the economy that is coming will see very clear quid pro quo between taxes and services. That’s how I would like to see it.

      • alaincoe Says:

        yes, it looks funny from here.
        here we have capitalist allergy.
        my experince is that there are few differences between reality of capitalisme, and taxes… money is wasted differently, and strategy is parly good, and partly stupid, but differently… cultural problem.

        however on taxation it is a good exempla of how it is hard for a society to imagine how to behave afeter a paradigm shift.

        taxing gazoline to build road is a method, that was good in the 50s.
        you could decide to put the bill on usual taxes, VAT, income, benefits…
        you can also decide to use modern technology to compute the tax, proportionally to usage. why not put a GPS taxbox ?
        why not also put the very useful “crash blackbox” like on plane. it is proved taht it reduce the risk taking behaviors, even if the BB is not used in court (tested in germany for a science research. accidents got zeroed, at least reduced bu x10 compared to banchmark).
        why not tax the refill, the maintenance, the property…

        also if LENR develop, commercial ballance will get better, unemployment an desindustrialization will lower, and will need less taxe…

        hard to know what will happend, but sure no more business as usual. have to change methods, because the problems will change.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Bruce, the Americans do have an allergy to taxes because we are taxed to death, but more importantly people are forced to pay for things that we do not want to support. We have 49% of our people receiving money from the government, the 51% are getting very tired of paying these. We send foreign aid to all but a few countries. Why should we be given aid to China, we borrow it from them and pay interest on the money we give them. It makes no sense. The DNC wants to just keep spending and has taken us to a financial cliff we may not recover from. Taxing is a huge issue and could be the grounds for the next American revolution.
        I hope your right, taxes and services align for the average guy, because right now they aren’t even close.

  21. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    any relation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: