The Absolute Answer to Oil Peak: Cold Fusion.

I don't know about how many of you feel or know about cold fusion, but to me, the absolute best choice for overcoming Peak Oil and the issues surrounding a oil-driven and based society, would be a joint national scientific community research--well funded, staffed, and given priority--into successfully harnessing cold fusion. This is could be carried over to allied nations or even become a joint world scientific research.

One of the best general sourcing I have read on cold fusion is this:
Cold fusion

The aim of this topic is to discuss the viability of cold fusion, the ramifications of it, and if it is a near-future possibility. Is it something that can be made a priority, researched, and implemented before the oil crash.

Thoughts or comments?





seekerof

i've heard that there is already an international agreement to begin a globally funded cold fusion project and that is doable but there is disagreement as to which country is to host the project. leave something like pissy territorial squabbles to hold back something like this.

My main issue with the oil peak isn't the fall of the power grid- that can be compensated for. The real problem is transportation. The rise of cost of living, slowing of international trade, and lack of any viable alternative whatsoever.

DE

True DeusEx,
But if a national or international consortium was put together so that the nation or entire world could benefit from such an alternative energy source as cold fusion, would that not solve a great deal of problems?

Or is it simply an unobtainable 'pipe-dream'?
I certainly do not think so, but for it to be applied internationally, freely, it might be.





seekerof

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Unfortunately, cold fusion won't help the main issues of the Peak Oil Crisis. We can have all the cheap electricity in the world, but that won't help us unless our cars run on coal. Please see my thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheap electricity won't help when a cut of meat costs as much as a car.

DE

Yes, I understand that oil provides over 85-90% of our transportation fuels, etc.

But again, cold fusion technology could be utilized in automobiles to power them [cold fusion powered automobiles], generator units, etc.

I do believe that cold fusion techonology can be applied to and for transportation purposes.




seekerof

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Thoughts or comments?

I've been fascinated with the idea of cold fusion for quite some time - but honestly hadn't put any thought into it in recent years.

However - if it can be done with any reliability and if it can actually produce more power than it takes in- it could really help with an energy crunch.

no more would you need to worry about electricity being generated by "dirty" plants, thus making electric modes of transportation (be it mass transit or electric cars) *the* cleanest solution. Thus, imo we could use all the juice we wanted with minimal to no impact on the surrounding environment. I'm sure it would also eventually be scaled down for use by cars (imagine changing the water in your car every so often instead of filling it up with gas!). Heck it could cause new types of aircraft to be developed...

[edit on 9-4-2005 by negativenihil]

Seekerof- The question is how fast could it be applied? Wouldn't the costs be astronomical? And wouldn't it be jsut mildly dangerous? I have a sudden image of the following headline:

"Car Crash In San Diego, City Wiped From Face of Planet"

The inherent dangers seem quite...real. Loss of containment and malfunctions would be dangerous. Imagine the roads clogged with first-generation nuclear-powered cars....

and then look at road fatality statistics.

DE

Hehehe.....
Your beating me over the head here, DeusEx.
I have no clue, just really starting researching it.
But I will assert this, I do believe that cold fusion is the key for the future.

Since no one else is really taking cold fusion seriously, I'll continue to research it myself.

Thanks for the drumming though.





seekerof

I agree, if we can last long enough to have cold-fusion power grids it'll help immensely. However, that doesn't help the transportation issue. But please, continue researching. i am curious about its pollution and feasability in particular.

DE

How doesnt it solve our transportation problem?

Retrofit trucks with electric motors instead of hydrogen ones that require electrolysis and you've turned cold-fusion directly into fuel for transportation.

What is kind of wrong about lifebeforetheoilcrash.com is that the site assumes impossibility of prices because they apply it to the current global economy as a whole. Of course no one could possibly try and convert 25 trillion dollars worth of infrastructure over to alternative fuels. But America has the means of doing it for herself, as do Britain and many Western nations.

If they started now or 5 years ago we'd be well on our way to getting there. Saying that its not going to help is half true, it wont help the world maintain its current stanards as that would be impossible. However something like cold-fusion could slowly drag a few countries out of the Post-Modern Stoneage in less than a generation.

Is it really not worth even trying?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Since no one else is really taking cold fusion seriously, I'll continue to research it myself.

I must be on ignore or speaking a different language

I'm 100% serious about my comments on cold fusion. I may not fully understand it all, but i do think some hard money needs to be put up for some serious research.

seekerof says:

"I don't know about how many of you feel or know about cold fusion, but to me, the absolute best choice for overcoming Peak Oil and the issues surrounding a oil-driven and based society, would be a joint national scientific community research--well funded, staffed, and given priority--into successfully harnessing cold fusion."

Finding and implementing a replacement for burning hydrocarbons is literally a life-or-death decision for th entire planet, and you're saying that out top priority is to replace it with an unproven technology?

Not I.

You simply cannot schedule or budget engineering and scientific breakthoughs. I'd much rather replace the hydrocarbons with something that we know will work, while investing money on other technologies like cold fusion, which might or might not be viable.

Cold Fusion Goes Commercial...


We knew all along it would happen...."cold fusion" would begin to be commercialized long before science fully came to grips with what the mysterious and extremely potent excess heat-generating process really is.

Remarkably, cold fusion is being commercialized even in the face of continued widespread, but obviously misguided skepticism that the phenomenon even exists! As former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Dr. Edmund Storms, now with Salt Lake City-based ENECO, has suggested, "We can thank the skeptics for allowing some of us the chance to become very rich." Clearly, if the U.S. Department of Energy evaluation of cold fusion in 1989 had been even 10% objective, and if threatened institutions had been open to the new discovery, in 1995 there would be precious little room in the field for small companies and entrepreneurs.

Article


The above article was from 1995.

Here is a web page called Cold Fusion Times that looks to hold some good info.

More articles on cold fusion of interest

From what I have seen it appears that it is worth some serious research into cold fusion. Not sure if it will happen since it will be hard for the big corporations to reap huge amounts of profit. Remember the tesla coil. After tesla died his notes dissappeared and now we have ufo's that fly like they would if used with the tesla coil.

Cold Fusion is pipe dream- pie in the sky stuff.

Rememebr that it produces neclear waste! No way this energy source is going to be placed in automobiles. Imagine a junkyard full of cold fusion powered cars. The eventual disaster could be 'earth shaking.'

Cold Fusion may have applications some day, but not now. As Off_the_Street pointed out, technology advances can not be planned for. They occur when they occur.

It's true that technology advances cannot be planned for but they can be helped along with proper management and funding. The technologies used during the missions to the moon are examples of this.

I've got a better alternative. We can "kill two birds with one stone" on this idea. When we run out of oil, we just build massive canals throughout the world. Everyone will row their own boats, canoes, kayaks, etcetera to work. Thus, elimnating a lack of excercise in some countries, reducing unsightly obesity. Lets just make the world a huge Venice, Italy.

We've still got canals, lets hope they work and we can dust off the steam powered boats

Why do people assume that cold fusion would have to be used for the actual transportation? If we have abundant supplies of electrical energy (which cold fusion will enable) we can simply use that to produce hydrogen for transportation. Since battery tech is advancing exponentially also(there is a new battery that can be charged in 2 mins by toshiba) we could use them in cars once the power density is equal or in excess of what we get from petrol/ diesel.
BTW the international effort is not to develop cold fusion, it is for the develoment of a regular fusion reactor and its called ITER. Either way it will be a breakthrough when we achieve fusion or cold fusion, both will have the same effect.

Come on, certain fractions of our government/democracy fear battery operated transportation vehicles as clean enegry sources because of difficulties regarding taxation.

Regarding "peak oil" theories or more specifically lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is a bunch of hoopla, or at least some of it regarding engery alternatives.

The Toyota Prius is a hybrid car that offers 4L/100km fuel consumption that retails for roughly $36,000 CAD. I'm sure with improvements in manufacturing etc the price should drop $10k over the next year or two.

lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Hybrids or so called "hyper-cars" aren't the answer either because the construction of an average car consumes about 25-50 barrels of oil. Thus, a crash program to replace the 700 million internal combustion vehicles currently on the road with super fuel-efficient or alternative fuel-powered vehicles would consume approximately 18-36 billion barrels of oil, which is the amount of oil the world currently consumes in six-to-twelve months. Consequently, such a program (while well-intentioned) would actually bring the collapse upon us even sooner.

Suggesting we begin an extremely radical progressive objective to remove 700 million combustion vehicles all at once off our roads would be economical suicide. Our government should be graded an "F" for neglecting to even begin with the transition process, even if it's at a snails pace.