[jeffkrol]

From denial on Forbes to this:
Cold Fusion and Unintended Consequences - Forbes

I’ve written about cold fusion (also referred to as a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) a few times over the past year or so and, as I recently discussed, it seems there may well be a real effect producing anomalous heat in experimental setups.

The experimental stuff is all well and good but so far no one has managed to definitively demonstrate that whatever the effect is can be reliably harnessed to provide a useful energy source.

So, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume cold fusion can be turned into a practical technology, that cold fusion generators can be built, and that they will be sold incredibly cheaply.

We might also assume that once the technology becomes understood (whether or not the physics are understood) countless companies will appear very quickly to capitalize on the enormous potential marketplace. Generators ranging from perhaps as small as a camping stove right up to gigawatt installations will appear all over the planet and probably do so with incredible speed.

This is the kind of future of ubiquitous, cheap power that many of the cold fusion believers theorize is just around the corner.

Could there be a downside to practical cold fusion?

Jumping the shark???

[Clavius]

Could there be a downside to practical cold fusion?

1. If every single person on the planet has countless terrawatts to play with, wouldn't the heat generated by the usage of all that power heat up the earth's atmosphere at a rate that will make the current influence from carbon look like a tiny candle?

2. And the first villain country to turn such technology into a terrible weapon of mass destruction is: ...Just pick any one from a long list...

I can think of more downsides if I put my tinfoil hat on. LOL!

[Ratmagiclady]

1. If every single person on the planet has countless terrawatts to play with, wouldn't the heat generated by the usage of all that power heat up the earth's atmosphere at a rate that will make the current influence from carbon look like a tiny candle?

2. And the first villain country to turn such technology into a terrible weapon of mass destruction is: ...Just pick any one from a long list...

I can think of more downsides if I put my tinfoil hat on. LOL!

I think the key there is 'low energy' ...if that can be scaled up to 'terawatts per person' is a number of steps very far to worry about.

Just to be 'realistic' ...we don't know of a technology that would *use* that much energy per person, and the waste heat there would be the same as it is with what we've got, *minus* most of what the generating capacity already puts out, and without the atmospheric trapping effects.

If they could make a useful *small* cold fusion unit, then that saves a lot of load on transformers and transmission lines, ...if they could only make big ones, then they'd basically just replace power plants already putting out much more waste. But I'm pretty sure the actual heat produced by *running* machinery is of itself pretty inconsequential compared to trapping sunlight, or the burning and transmitting of power itself, for that matter.

I very much doubt any feared destructive potential: unlike a chain reaction or chemical explosion, a cold fusion unit would mostly only be able to break itself, and once broken, immediately stop producing energy, I should think.

[jeffkrol]

1. If every single person on the planet has countless terrawatts to play with, wouldn't the heat generated by the usage of all that power heat up the earth's atmosphere at a rate that will make the current influence from carbon look like a tiny candle?

2. And the first villain country to turn such technology into a terrible weapon of mass destruction is: ...Just pick any one from a long list...

I can think of more downsides if I put my tinfoil hat on. LOL!

1) w lower CO2 levels heat generated here would just dissapate into space.. It is the trapping effect that is a problem which would be greatly lowered by reducing CO@ levels..
2)Seems "some" NASA people may believe this .. though

Martinez said that in preparation for the conference, he was seeking to find a high-profile, credible scientist to speak about LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, colloquially referred to as "cold fusion"). Someone had recommended Dennis Bushnell, Senior Scientist at NASA, who has given various presentations on LENR.
So he called Dr. Bushnell.
Apparently, in the course of the conversation, James said something that set Bushnell off, pushing a button, so to speak, and Bushnell launched into a tirade about how "dangerous" cold fusion is, and that James should do something else.

http://pesn.com/2012/11/14/9602219_NASA-Senior-Scientist_Dennis-Bushnell_thr...ames-Martinez/

Though it could be thought that Dr. Bushnell was referring more to economic destruction than some doomsday device....

funny how quicky we go from "doesn't exist except in fairy tales" to a "doomsday device" isn't it..........



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

The major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, and are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. The Earth's surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface.

[7] When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.

[7] Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-21-2012 at 05:20 PM.

[Ex Finn.]

So if CO2 is so good for trapping heat, should we not collect it and use it as insulation for our homes. Just a thought.

[Ratmagiclady]

So if CO2 is so good for trapping heat, should we not collect it and use it as insulation for our homes. Just a thought.

I hope that's sarcasm? It *Is* of course, insulating our homes, inasmuch as my attic is only open to space during particularly odd dreams?


(Speaking of odd dreams, I think I just invented something. Like, if you used argon or something between double-glazing on windows, could you make it like a big neon light? )

[Ex Finn.]

I hope that's sarcasm? It *Is* of course, insulating our homes, inasmuch as my attic is only open to space during particularly odd dreams?

I should have used 3 LOL`s in the end.

[Clavius]

I very much doubt any feared destructive potential: unlike a chain reaction or chemical explosion, a cold fusion unit would mostly only be able to break itself, and once broken, immediately stop producing energy, I should think.

What about extremely high powered lasers, mounted on a battleship with it's own cold fusion power. That much power could give it unlimited range. Just like satellites being able to hit any target on the ground from space. I bet there's many people that are way more creative then me.

[Ratmagiclady]

What about extremely high powered lasers, mounted on a battleship with it's own cold fusion power. That much power could give it unlimited range. Just like satellites being able to hit any target on the ground from space. I bet there's many people that are way more creative then me.

Ah, I think I may see the confusion: I don't think anyone's talking about little LENRs that can produce terawatts *all at once.* You'd have to worry about any kind of energy technology having military applications, but even that could mean there's a whole lot less to fight over. "Hrm, I've got this unlimited power source, I think I'll put a laser beam on it and conquer someone's oil, instead of, oh, desalinating seawater for drinking or irrigation, running a whole bunch of snow machines to restore the Arctic, etc etc...

Given that kind of relatively-consequence-free energy, we could apply it pretty directly to a lot of outstanding problems in the world. "Glaciers melting? Ok, let's put em back."

[Ex Finn.]

I should have used 3 LOL`s in the end.

In reality, CO2 is almost as good of an insulating gas as Argon that is used in double-pane windows.
Thermal Conductivity of some common Materials and Gases

[Ex Finn.]

What about extremely high powered lasers, mounted on a battleship with it's own cold fusion power. That much power could give it unlimited range. Just like satellites being able to hit any target on the ground from space. I bet there's many people that are way more creative then me.

I believe they already tried high-power lasers as weapons. There were some technical difficulties trying to deliver the beam for long distances, main problem was exploding dust particles in the air, causing beam diffraction/dispersion.

Edit: The correct term is "Blooming"

[jeffkrol]

In reality, CO2 is almost as good of an insulating gas as Argon that is used in double-pane windows.
Thermal Conductivity of some common Materials and Gases

on this side note.. an interesting discussion......
Print Page - Gas filled double/tripple glazing - why Argon

this one was funny to me...........

CO2 is cheap.

When I worked in the ESI, liquid C02 was bought by the tanker load as reactor coolant, 10 years ago, approx £80/tonne. Most of that cost was in collecting and tankering it round the country to various customers. Otherwise, just vented to atmosphere, just by a different value added route.

ODDLY enough tying economics to "cold fusion" (or any energy source0

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2012/11/16/energy-production-and-entropy/

[Ratmagiclady]

Heehee. Yeah, actually, I understand someone's come up with a carbon-capturing form of concrete, (which ends up making it kind of carbon neutral overall instead of a big producer of it. It was quite some time ago when I saw a news piece on it, so I'm hazy on the details: I guess the only thing about it is that existing concrete production would have to do some big-time retooling to adopt it. I forget if it takes some source of concentrated CO2 or just pulls it out of the air. )

[jeffkrol]

Heehee. Yeah, actually, I understand someone's come up with a carbon-capturing form of concrete, (which ends up making it kind of carbon neutral overall instead of a big producer of it. It was quite some time ago when I saw a news piece on it, so I'm hazy on the details: I guess the only thing about it is that existing concrete production would have to do some big-time retooling to adopt it. I forget if it takes some source of concentrated CO2 or just pulls it out of the air. )

While Calera's process of making calcium carbonate cement wouldn't eliminate all CO2 emissions, it would reverse that equation. "For every ton of cement we make, we are sequestering half a ton of CO2," says crystallographer Brent Constantz, founder of Calera. "We probably have the best carbon capture and storage technique there is by a long shot."

Carbon capture and storage has been identified by experts ranging from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the leaders of the world's eight richest nations (G8) as crucial to the fight against climate change. The idea is to capture the CO2 and other greenhouse gases produced when burning fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas, and then permanently store it, such as in deep-sea basalt formations.

Calera's process takes the idea a step forward by storing the CO2 in a useful product. The U.S. used more than 122 million metric tons of Portland cement in 2006, according to the Portland Cement Association (PCA), an industry group, and China used at least 800 million metric tons.

The Calera process essentially mimics marine cement, which is produced by coral when making their shells and reefs, taking the calcium and magnesium in seawater and using it to form carbonates at normal temperatures and pressures. "We are turning CO2 into carbonic acid and then making carbonate," Constantz says. "All we need is water and pollution."

Cement from CO 2 : A Concrete Cure for Global Warming?: Scientific American

Unlike most people, I assume many answers are available to any problem at any time... (short of an asteroid).. but fails to be implemented only on mistaken economic and social "Will" (no not money)

addendum:
http://www.lenrproof.com/

[Clavius]

You'd have to worry about any kind of energy technology having military applications, but even that could mean there's a whole lot less to fight over. "Hrm, I've got this unlimited power source, I think I'll put a laser beam on it and conquer someone's oil, instead of...

Yes, one less reason to go to war over... That just leaves reasons like, religion, living space, ethnic cleansings, poor/rich differences, general stupidity and...

Who needs a reason anyway?! I am 100% certain that certain nations just go to war because they want to. (Example: Iraques imaginary WMD's that gave the green light to rape the whole country. War was forged with that country, even though international inspection crews swore that there were no WMD present.)

The sudden appearence of "free energy" from such devices may just even start wars. What if the discoverer doesn't want to share the technology with other nations? What if certain nations just don't want other nations to develope the same technology? A current example of that is the US that doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power. Or, what happens when the main source of income (oil) for certain countries, suddenly vanishes?

When I put on my tinfoil hat, I can imagine that they already have the technology ready, but left it in fridge to save for when we run out of oil.