Warming towards cold fusion

In Fusion Runs Hot and Cold, Jonah Messinger, the Breakthrough Institute's Senior Energy Analysist, provides a comprehensive overview of the state of the science of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), a field once known as "Cold Fusion." Although long castigated as a pseudoscience, the field has attracted a growing number of credible experts, recent DOE funding, and has produced a growing body of empirical evidence for a phenomena that is becoming increasingly understood as a third type of nuclear power.

Cold fusion has long been widely misunderstood, beginning with its flawed introduction by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, electrochemists at the University of Utah, as far back as 1989. They claimed to have induced fusion reactions of deuterium nuclei in a palladium foil by applying a current to drive electrolysis. Their electrolysis experiments—inspired by older anomalous reports of cold-fusion-like experiments in the 1920s—caused several sharp, multi-day bursts in thermal power output from their cells well above the electrical power of the input current or the total potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of the electrolyte.

There were multiple problems with Fleishmann and Pons’ work, which were revisited by Jonah Messinger, not least of which was a lack of both reproducibility and a lack of a theoretical explanation. According to this review, not five weeks after the initial claims—the field was proclaimed dead by speakers at the influential American Physical Society (APS), among which was a mocking rebuttal by Steven Koonin, then a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech—now notorious for his dismissal of climate change impacts.

Although at that time, the DOE’s panel to evaluate cold fusion opted against funding cold fusion research (despite evidence of neutron and tritium production that could not be explained), the body of scientific evidence since then has grown such that even the DOE has finally agreed to fund research. Catch up on the current state of scientific understandings about what is now far more widely believed to be a highly complex, multi-body, low energy nuclear reaction with this article from the Breakthrough Institute.

Read more at Breakthrough's Fusion Runs Hot and Cold, by Jonah Messinger, May 18, 2023. Also see the Nature.com article, Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion by Ross Koningstein, David Fork, Matt Trevithick and others, from May 19, 2019.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Government support, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear R&D, Politicians supporting nuclear, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

December 20, 2022

Celebrating the Successful Campaign to Save Diablo Canyon

We are thrilled to share that Diablo Canyon has been saved—for now! Rather than allowing this clean energy producing power plant to be wastefully decommissioned by those who simply dislike nuclear power, the California legislature, under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, voted to extend its life by up to 10 years. Senate Bill 846, sponsored by Jordan Cunningham (CA-25, R), passed with nearly unanimous votes in both the Democratically-controlled Assembly and Senate. SB 846 also provides for as much as $1.4 billion in loans from California to PG&E for re-licensing and enables PG&E to also submit a timely application to the DOE's Civil Nuclear Credit program for further aid in re-starting licensing with the NRC and transitioning back to full-operating mode. This is a nearly miraculous win for California's pronuclear advocates and it is worth celebrating both the win and the broader community that made it possible. Please read more at the link.

Published by Nucleation Capital in ADVOCACY ACTIONS, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Environmental support for nuclear, Government support, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Women in Nuclear

November 18, 2014

What it takes to reverse climate change

Ross Koningstein and David Fork, armed with the resources of Google, Inc., set out in an effort that was known as "RE<C" to assess and support the development of renewable energy sources so that they could generate reliable electricity more cheaply than coal. In an subsequent article penned in the IEEE Spectrum entitled What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change: Today's renewable energy technologies won't save us. So what will?, we learn the results of their years of work.

Initially, Google announced that it would help promising technologies mature by investing in start-ups and even engaging in internal R&D. Its goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than could a coal-fired plant within a few years, not decades. Unfortunately, within a few years, Google shut down the initiative, when it became clear that exclusively using renewables would not work. Koningstein and Fork then turned their attention to examining the the underlying assumptions and learning from their experience.

Even though there were a few sparse areas that might manage to achieve higher renewables penetration and approach the goal, it was clear that most regions of the world would not be able to power their needs with renewables, if looked at on a time-coincident basis. They determined that the only way to both stop new emissions and reverse the warming trends that had been put into motion by CO2 accumulations was through "radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon."

Ross Koningstein serves as an advisor to Nucleation Capital and we have discussed and benefitted in many ways from his vast experience. Read Ross' own published report at "What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change: Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?."