Energy Policy Should Be Based on Reason
Perhaps the greatest single threat facing mankind today is our failure to apply reason to effect solutions. In fact, we appear to openly defy and ridicule the findings of our scientific community, writing them off as so many liars and frauds. At least here in the United States, a significant segment of our population has bought into the idea that science has conspired to fabricate the notion of global climate change, fudging the figures so as to create the appearance of a problem, in order to generate ongoing funding for additional research.
In essence, we now have an arena, i.e., politics, that trumps science. And, while the example above may be the most obvious example, it’s certainly not the only one.
Wally Rippel, an extremely senior physicist from Cal Tech, points out that top scientists are ostracized constantly for not conforming to the mainstream viewpoints on various subjects. In a recent conversation, he gave me a couple of examples associated with low-energy nuclear reactions (aka “cold fusion”). Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, best known for his X-ray laser, is a strong proponent, but he’s been isolated from the entire scientific community because of that belief.
Wally also tells this story:
Fred Hartley was on the board of directors at Cal Tech in 1989 when the results of the initial cold fusion experiments were released. He was also CEO of Union Oil. It was explained that all of this was “a problem” for Cal Tech. The vice provost who had been provost at Caltech 12 or 15 years ago, very capable physicist, left Cal Tech to work for British Petroleum, then left British Petroleum to become the head of the Department of Energy Science. This was the person who convinced the world that cold fusion was junk science. He directly stated that Fleishman and Pons were fraudulent—and he had the credibility to make that statement. I’ve been very troubled by that, because just seeing the scientific data, it doesn’t correspond to that. I see a reality there.
I felt a great deal of unfairness was done. I did not see a professionalism. I spoke to some of the Cal Tech faculty who were part of the debunking process and I did not feel it was a professional response; there was something else involved.
More recently, I was able to do this: I offered to make a significant donation to Cal Tech for their doing research in the cold fusion area even if that research would continue to debunk it. The offer was over $100,000.
The development association of Cal Tech went to the physics department—I wanted it to be through the physics department—and the physics department said, “We will not do this. We will never do it. It will not be done here at Cal Tech.” And the development person said, “Well, do you believe cold fusion to be fraudulent? Invalid?” And the person said, “That is not the issue. The issue is: the fact that we debunked it means we can’t go back and revisit it. It will not be done here.”
I asked, “But what about if this is scientifically valid?” The person said, “It doesn’t matter. We will not do it. Period.”
Clearly, mankind is never well-served to put its scientists in a position of subservience to big money/power, where they feel they must toe the line on any issue, whether it’s global warming, cold fusion, “clean coal,” etc.
I would further argue that we face an even bigger problem when religion and science cross paths. A few years ago, Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, who aspired to be chairman of the super-powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, quoted the bible (the books of Genesis and Matthew) as reason not to act on climate change, reading:
And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather His elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth will end only when God declares it is time for it to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth.
Shimkus continued, asserting,
There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet, not that we have too much carbon.
Please do not ask me to explain what Shimkus could possibly mean by “There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet.” But that’s not the point. While I hesitate to challenge anyone’s faith, I don’t hesitate for a second in recommending against electing lawmakers whose policy decision-making process so clearly and aggressively fly in the teeth of critically relevant scientific discoveries. I urge our civilization to come up with a better way in dealing with the lethally important challenges we face.
More broadly, we need to remove all influences of religion and politics from the realm of science. To the degree that we’re incapable of doing this, i.e., freeing science from the yoke of corruption and stupidity, we will richly deserve the disasters that are headed our way.
I do not feel qualified to have an opinion on cold fusion. However, history can provide examples of discoveries that have been rejected and later found to be correct.
Many people died because of the rejection of the germ theory of infection and disease. Perhaps President Garfield is the best example. His assassination wound would not have been fatal except for the fact that several doctors stuck dirty fingers and instruments into it an unsuccessful attempt to extract the bullet. Because of the resulting infection, he died months later. That was in 1881, decades after there had been considerable evidence to support the germ theory of infection and disease, a theory that was ridiculed by many doctors although quickly accepted by some.
Regarding cold fusion, surely it would be reasonable for researchers to work with the scientists who discovered the phenomenon to determine whether it can actually be reproduced.
Craig,
I don’t think that cold fusion is a worthy discussion point – as its advocates do not adhere to the common discipline of science.
Whether or not a study can technically be classified within the empirically reductive philosophy that is “science” can be tested with the following questions:
“Can this issue be investigated empirically?”,
“Is there a relevant theory that this can be linked to?”,
“Can this be tested directly?”,
“Is there a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning”,
“CAN THESE RESULTS BE REPLICATED”, and
“Is the research disclosed to encourage professional critique from other researchers.”
The stuff revolving around “cold fusion” fails on the second, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth criteria. Hence: not science.
When fully disclosed research that yields reproduceable results that can be coherently explained by relevant theory starts to emerge… then perhaps the physics departments should be compelled to include these studies… but for now it belongs with seances, not sciences.
Following the Money is how we determine the why. Unfortunately bad science haas been going on eternally and the only way is for individuals to work thru and create the products and the public to buy and support those improving clean tech. Without the stupid government interference.
While cold fusion remains unproved, I continue to believe that if anyone wants to research it, there is no reason they can’t continue to do so. The research itself may turn up valuable insights or developments that are useful in other areas. That is scientific progress.
Two outstanding articles by brilliant scientists appeared recently on climate change with opposite perspectives that are both well worth the read.
One by David Rutledge, who probably has the best data on oil, gas, and coal resources and their likely ultimate recovery. He concludes we likely will have depleted 90% of the combined fossil resources that will ultimately be recovered by 2070. He further argues that there is little value in trying to reduce CO2 emissions because it doesn’t make much difference in the long run whether these resources are depleted by 2060 or 2100. Unfortunately, there are a number of flaws in his reasoning. Most significantly, he ignores the effects of positive feedbacks (thawing tundra, etc.), and he ignores the enormous impacts from the non-uniformity of climate change. Global warming is already increasing severe droughts in important food producing areas.
The impending desertification of all major food-producing areas on the planet within several decades has not received anywhere near the attention it deserves. Joe Romm published an excellent study in Nature 6 months ago on the Dust-Bowlification coming to the US, South America, Southeast Asia, Africa, Southern Europe, and many other areas. The paper is now available on his website:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/24/478771/my-nature-piece-dust-bowlification-grave-threat-it-poses-to-food-security/?mobile=nc
All major climate models are now predicting global catastrophe by 2050 even with moderate efforts at reduction of CO2 emissions.
Joe Romm is an outstanding climate scientist, but his perspectives on economic and climate benefit of many renewables technologies and concepts are often flawed.
The point is that most serious scientists try to get things right, and most do a lot of good, but none are perfect. There simply needs to be for funding available to support more scientists that are trying to come up with solutions.
The study on Energy Innovation headed by the distinguished Norm Augustine, just presented to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee a few days ago, recommended that we triple energy R&D. I think that would be a good start.
Thanks very much. I’ll look into these sources.
Dear Craig,
Thanks for bringing this subject up,
Liars in their Lairs a spellchecker typo is in your post.
I believe we should be promoting and investing in Energy sources that extract Thermal Energy and replace the need for new Nuclear fossil and Biomass fuel plants which add thermal energy and greenhouse gases. These cause untold damage to the environment and public health and safety which costs us all money too in the long run.
Using heat to produce energy whilst reducing heat and emissions from burning fossil fuels seems like a reasonable and logical solution to me.
Dear Craig,
I am an “INSIDER”.
First, sorry, I haven’t had the time to read all the post/answers here above.
Secondly, cold fusion technology works PERFECTLY. It is already been RUN … but … is the “forced” OWNERSHIP of the UN (controlling the WIPO a you know). The creation origin of cold fusion is from a Belgium-living man.
U.N. means that it is “property of the humanity” but under worst under the U.N. control. I don’t find fair from the U.N. but I am jsut a man.
I have assisted to real demonstrations “live” with hundreds scientifics and it works but can not be sold although produced at 10,000 units : cold hydrogen plasma reactors of 4 kW and 10 kW for houses and small companies.
The producing company was shut down by the U.N. and is now controlled by the U.N. Army.
We have patented several renewable energy that are self-sufficient/self profitable without any RE production subsidiations.
We did it :
– using multiple patents
– in languages for which the U.N. Expert “living in the WIPO” even doesn’t speak/read
– not delivering all in the patent and of course not the ignitaion key
We are INSIDERS I told you.
If your patent/technology is “too good”, it will be stopped or “application suspended”.
We have 2 patents, currently been sold (equity participating in our IP (Intellectual Property) companies for billions EUR/USD :
1. Wind turbine application : a Power & Increase Box that deliver on existing wind turbine (or new to be built) from 4 times more power during +20 % production time (the turbine start at 1 m/sec instead of 3 /sec), with same wind speed, same blades, of same design, of same size, under same weather conditions.
2. A Wave & Tidal Power Unit that delivers 100 MW, 80+ % of the time, 10 million EUR total investement including all civil engineering works.
I have personally wrote to you several times and never got an answer … !!!
Have a good day.
best regards,
Olivier
E-mail : olivier.balhan@skynet.be
Skype : balha76202
Hi Olivier,
I also bet on the OTEC route, to tap into the stored solar energy in the tropical seas, around 315 EJ/yr, as long as the sun shines.
Best,
Vicente Fachina
Rio
Seems like the fossil fuel industry has a deft touch in pricing that keeps their products just low enough to prevent the kind of pain that would get regular folks to demand renewables.
As long as they can pull that off, and can continue to effectively create and distribute doubt regarding climate science, they will be fabulously profitable without any real consequences.
I’ve been amazed at how many different views there can be of the issues you raise in your blogs, and how each individual can sound convinced (and convincing) that the other person’s views/statements are flawed. The comments to your postings are quite interesting in this regard.
I hope that it does not take some world cataclysmic event to get enough influential people on the same page to effect real change, but whatever it takes, that is what needs to happen. We need a working project focused on how to build big national & world consensus… how to join the various scientific & environmental groups together for ONE LOUD STRONG VOICE that can get it done.
I agree Mark, well put, Who will put their hand up to be the ONE LOUD STRONG VOICE.
Nothing will change until change is introduced profitably, it’s essential for those in control to guarantee returns. We can influence the change to a degree but it must be a lucrative scenario for the monetery stake holders.
Catastrophes and disasters natural or manmade are happening on a regular basis in various parts of the world, rebuilds and recovery from these events are opertunities for change however! Rebuilds are carried out using conventional resources (donated or utilized because it is available at the time). What is available at the time does not compute for change or advancement, once in place the new structure, machine or process is worked to get the best result or profit for the provider and change is put off until it suits.
There are too many groups of us doing a little bit each!(I like your site Craig) We are largely all just talking and looking when action and a change is needed! There are too many opinions and the water is too murky!
The internet is the one constant where we are all brought together but we can get bogged down with too many options? If only we had a master plan.
First, I wanted to provide some clarity about the quote from Shimkus, which – in its present state – is unclear. His quotation from the bible ends at a crucial point in his comment, and the comment could be more clearly read as follows, with the bible quote within quotations to separate the conclusion that Shimkus’ himself then draws:
“…And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather His elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other…” The Earth will end only when God declares it is time for it to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth.
Now, to address his statement, and discuss the subject of Craig’s excellent post…
The attempt by Shimkus to use his personal belief that humankind will not destroy the earth as an excuse to keep polluting the earth is folly in the extreme – not only a folly of reason but also of faith.
Even among those many millions of us who ascribe great truth and wisdom to the surviving scriptures of ancient faiths, those who claim to be follow Jesus (and his grounding in Hebrew teachings) should understand that there are important articles of faith regarding wise stewardship of the planet’s bounty.
Such people must understand is that – even within the confines of Christian faith – humans have free will, and are thus enabled to lead themselves (or allow themselves be led) into catastrophic error, with lethally devastating consequences to the global biosphere and all of us humans who depend on it.
Human claims of faith prevented neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition nor the Holocaust – all three of these tragic missteps in human history had at their root madly deceived people who fervently but falsely claimed understanding of and adherence to Christian scripture. However, I’ve seen nothing in the New Testament to support any of these cruel brutalities, and plenty to preclude and prohibit each of them.
I’m aware of nothing in Judeo-Christian scripture that directly contradicts the discoveries of great minds such as Nicolaus Copernicus or Galileo Galilei, but members of the Catholic Church assailed the writings of both men. In fact, church officials persecuted Galileo severely, holding him under house arrest from the age of 69 until his death at 77. The reprinting his works was forbidden by the heads of the Catholic Church for another 76 years.
According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else, and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science.
Of course, modern science is the process whereby the careful observation, testing and documentation of phenomena leads to operative hypotheses and theories that are rigorously examined and investigated well beyond their popular acceptance as fact. Scientists are constantly questioning and challenging each other, and are most often exceedingly careful not to overstate their own conclusions.
Such people are cautious by nature, and are generally not given to wild leaps of faith or crudely deceptive practices. The same, however, cannot be said of people who claim to be religious nor who seek political office.
Speaking as a politically active Christian, in choosing the best course of action with regard to energy policy or environmental policy, and faced with advice from individuals each schooled in one of three fields – religion, politics and science – I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.
Historically, Copernicus and Galileo were come-latelys with their sun-centric ideas. Aristarchus of Samos (about 310-230 BC) taught that the earth not only revolved around the sun, but spun on its own axis once a day while doing so. As the Catholic Church did not exist until some 700 years later, he escaped from persecution by them. However, Cleanthes, leader of the Stoics, tried to have him indicted on a charge of impiety. We humans can be incredibly stubborn-espescially in matters of religion and politics. Science, however, is not exempt from this either.
Dear Craig
Welcome to the real world.
The almost 2 years I have followed you, I have at least once a week going to cancel my subscription to 2GreeenEnergy Alert.
It has often been very frustrating to read it as the act and written by you and many of you.
Do not give up now that the light is turned on. More than 99% of the world’s population has this time been without light in the tunnel. A lot of these people with widely and deliberately positioned outside the light of pure self interest. I do not think you belong to this group.
I am very happy that from now may be to spread the knowledge to the world that makes it possible to stop / reduce errors investments that cost our planet enormous value in the capital and limited natural resources.
With the supply of unlimited amounts of clean cheap energy, most of the world’s major problems will be solved. Thinking in this regard to food, clean water, overcrowding, ecosystem, plus unlimited new possibilities for humanity across the planet.
As former case will be the year 2012 a new historical concept of time.
Stand on Craig!
best Regards
Torbjorn
Hi Craig,
There are claims that “global warming” is part of the Earth and the sun natural cycles. Also there are evidences that global warming is an economic issue, to create new markets, to create a future to fit many interests.
The best reference for everything is knowledge, wisdom, to clean all we receive for proper judging for ourselves.
As to renewables, even if global warming proves to be an economic thing in the coming decades, still it´s a very good business in terms of profit and life quality. Cold fusion is cool for me…but I bet also on tapping into the largest solar collectors, the oceans, by using OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversions) systems. First commercial plant to be commissioned by 2014.
Best,
Vicente Fachina
Rio
Federal subsidies have ruined the objectivity of our science community. This problem was mentioned in President Eisenhower’s famous “military industrial complex” speech on leaving office. Both LENR and global warming are victims of these subsidies. The recipients of subsidies want to keep the status quo so that the gravy train can continue. That is why CalTech and MIT intentionally sabotaged the LENR discoveries. Oil and coal interests likewise want to discredit global warming to keep the gravy train going.
We need a major overhaul of our tax structure to eliminate subsidies to specific industries and spend the money instead on prizes for needed breakthroughs. The X prize has proved that prizes attract efficient venture capital that is an order of magnitude greater than the prize. Space travel and cures for disease can also benefit from the prize approach.
Hi, Tom. What a coincidence that I just this minute wrote this: http://2greenenergy.com/keeping-them-safe/23610/
I can’t address cold fusion, but I can state that many of us Illinoians are unimaginably embarrassed about Congressman Shimkus’ positions on many topics.
Although Illinois is a state that has a number of forward-thinking institutions, traditions, and cities, people like Shimkus continue get elected and re-elected to office in many of the rural (more conservative) parts of the state.
I hope others out there don’t think that Shimkus’ viewpoints reflect everyone’s viewpoint in his district; they certainly do not.
Hi, Craig,
I generally agree with Frank Eggers and the others who have broadly followed this view namely, cold fusion might not have been the best choice to illustrate the point you make in your article. I would like to add my own experiences relating to a similar case of presenting a new technology to the engineering and scientific community at large, and getting absolutely nowhere as far as issues of acceptance and eventual commercialization were concerned. I would also like to state that, to the best of my knowledge our efforts were never thwarted by any conspiracy or competitive opposition exercised by government(s) or the private entities.
If one invents a successful “means for converting a pressure into rotative motion” applying a hitherto little-known phenomenon of hydrostatics, then surely this would be a breakthrough, would it not?
Efforts over the past years – the 40th year since publication of the first descriptive literature was celebrated this past April – accomplished virtually nothing. A complete absence of meaningful feedback hindered analysis of what I could have been doing wrong. It was suggested to me only a few years back that it was precisely this missing feedback, even though I appeared not to have made any serious mistakes, that raised the largest red flag.
Fast forward to April 2012. I was given the honor of addressing a lab class of high school students which afforded me the opportunity to describe and give a practical demonstration of the hydrostatic phenomena underlying my technology. The enthusiasm expressed by the students and the two involved faculty members constituted very welcome feedback. The prevalent environment was clearly scientific in nature, rather than engineering, and this brought me to the realization that, over the past forty years I had been addressing the wrong audience. Separating the hydrostatic principles from the apparatus that applies these principles we end up with pure science on the one hand (a breakthrough) and on the other a very mundane steel fabrication no more complex or challenging than a simple, present-day heat exchanger (not a breakthrough, by any stretch of the imagination).
Mea culpa, raised to the power of ten!
A scientific paper for publication in a scholarly journal is under consideration, but its focus will be on education. Of greater interest to me would be a paper directed at the application of this energy conversion technology to thermal electric power generation where it would assure a significant reduction in all stack emissions with a concomitant improvement of plant revenue. But how do I, a professed non-scientist completely unconnected to the scientific community, gain access to the required scientific medium in which to publish a scholarly paper as described?
What rankles me the most is that I have fully disclosed the hydrostatics at play as of day one (April 1973) and proof-of-concept can be confirmed in any laboratory setting with minimal materials. Yet I know of only one individual who correctly described the phenomena involved. So, I must ask yet again, where on earth has the ability to dream, to explore, to satisfy curiosity gone to?
Alan E. Belcher.
As much as the scientist in me appreciates fulfillment through advancements, incremental or world shaping, it is my opinion that those will not be the avenue by which we move on to our next stage of living in a slightly less adversarial relationship with our planet and its resources.
To some degree I have been a record with a skip that keeps saying we will not see economic arguments,free market-wise, that place renewables at the head head of the line. Economic externalities are more than ever before ignored rather than utilized to build cases, and digging a whole in the ground for coal will be the low price leader for at least several hundreds of years. The technique or technology we choose to discuss is largely irrelevant to the change that must occur.
One of the earlier comments asked what we can do. Yep, the zillion dollar question. While I don’t know that answer, I do know what doesn’t work – extolling the virtues of any particular replacement mechanism. We need to get past the concept of wood for coal, for whale oil, for petroleum, for nuclear, for wind and PV, ad nauseum. That is *not* the discussion that will win the day.