food equals energy

The Renewable Energy Disaster


 If we have fancy boutique priced energy, we will have fancy boutique priced food! 

by Christopher Calder

     It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels.  Hobbits may be able to live poetically, generating energy from the wind, the sun, and the soil.  Real human beings living in an industrialized civilization need highly concentrated nonrenewable energy sources to survive.  Renewable energy schemes other than hydroelectric and geothermal power are resource hogs that take up huge amounts of space while providing very little usable energy in return.  Contrary to popular belief, solar, wind, wave energy, and biofuel schemes are not "energy efficient," and their ultra-high cost is an accurate measurement of that inherent inefficiency.  If they were efficient they would cost less than using fossil fuels, not dramatically more than using fossil fuels.

EXAMPLE:  To satisfy 100% of New York City's electricity needs with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock winds within a limited speed range, and a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut.  Solar photovoltaic cells are so inefficient that it would take about 60 square miles of expensive solar panels to generate just one gigawatt of electricity.  [Statistical source - Scientist Jesse H. Ausubel, author of "Renewable and nuclear heresies."]  Fortunately, there are affordable, carbon free energy solutions which are described in detail near the bottom of this web page.  First, let's analyze the energy solutions that don't work, and which cause much more harm than good. 

NEWS!  Two Georgetown University professors spill the beans about "The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push.NEWS!  See Germany's Green Energy Disaster NEWS!  The National Research Council says wind, solar, and biofuel subsidies are a failure at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 48 billion in federal subsidies have had no significant positive effects on global warming.   NEWS!  Study: Fuel from corn waste not better than gas

See the dramatic 15 minute YouTube video, The Global Biofuel Disaster.

NEWS!  Read the terrific and explosive pdf file, Twenty-First Century Snake Oil - Why the United States Should Reject Biofuels as Part of a Rational National Security Energy Policy by Captain T. A. “Ike” Kiefer of the United States Navy.

     Ethanol (199 proof vodka) and biodiesel (cooking oil) are made from food or inedible crops which displace normal agricultural activity.  Biofuel crops include corn, soybeans, rapeseed (canola oil), sugarcane, and palm trees (palm oil).  The majority of the world's corn is grown in the United States, and an ever increasing percentage of that crop is ending up in gas tanks instead of stomachs.  Increasing amounts of soybean and rapeseed are being diverted to biodiesel production, and world supplies of cooking oil are now low.  Corn and soybeans are the foundation of America's food supply, because they feed our farm animals which give us dairy products, eggs, and meat.  When the cost of animal feed is pushed up by biofuel production, the price American families pay for essential high protein foods also rises.  [See corn price chart]       

     Biofuels require large amounts of fertilizers to produce, and the price of fertilizer rose by more than 200% in 2007 alone.  Nitrogen fertilizers are largely made from natural gas, which experienced no significant price gain in 2007, so the main driving force of fertilizer price hyperinflation is undeniably biofuel production.  Biofuels are pushing up the cost of all foods that require fertilizers, including rice, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, and broccoli.
 To make matters worse, the world is gradually running out of economically obtainable phosphates, a prime ingredient in fertilizers.  If we use up our supplies of phosphates growing fuel instead of food, we bring closer the global collapse of the human food supply.

     According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices rose an incredible 40% in 2007.  The World Bank states that the cost of staple foods rose by 83% during the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008.  The International Food Policy Research Institute states that biofuels are responsible for rapid grain price inflation, and a detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the World Bank, stated that biofuels have helped push global staple food prices up to record heights.

     The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods.  Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity."  The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schuster, has called for United States and European Union biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is "a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people."  Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has.  The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat, because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food.

Ten reasons to oppose biofuels

1)  Starvation - Any force, such as worldwide biofuel production or oil price hikes, that significantly raises food prices also raises the number of human deaths due to malnutrition and related illness.  It is difficult for us to control the price of oil, but it is easy for us to control our own biofuel production; we just stop doing it.  The one-two punch of biofuels crowding out food production and high oil prices raising the cost of almost everything is a deadly blow to the poor on a planetary scale.

     No one knows exactly how many millions of people biofuel production has killed through malnutrition and related illness, but we can make a reasonable comparison to Chairman Mao Tse-tung's infamous Great Leap Forward five year economic plan, which is estimated to have killed between 20 and 43 million Chinese over a short three year period.  Mao had faddish, unscientific ideas about how to grow food, and he banned private farms in 1958 in his shift to communes and greater industrial output at the expense of agriculture.  This led to a 15% drop in grain production in China in 1959 and another 10% reduction in 1960.  The global biofuel disaster is a vastly larger event that has displaced food production in the U.S.A., Canada, Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, Australia, and in many small island nations.  Biofuels have been produced for many years, and the diversion of agricultural resources to feeding cars and trucks instead of people has been enormous and is ongoing.  When you dramatically raise the price of fertilizer and farmland all over the world, higher food prices inevitably result.  High food prices have the same net effect as outright food shortages.  If you live on less than $2.00 per day and do not have enough money to buy sufficient food in the marketplace, the food will never reach your stomach.

     My personal claim is that global biofuel production has killed more people worldwide during the 1993 to 2013 time frame than all wars and acts of terrorism combined over the same period.  That means biofuels have killed more than approximately 1.76 million people through malnutrition and related illness, and will go on killing innocent people until biofuel production is brought to a halt by an awakened public.  Biofuel deaths are a very hot, politically charged topic, and I am trying to get official ON THE RECORD numbers from experts I can quote rather than disseminate the many horrific "off the record" estimates I keep getting from publicity shy officials and food supply/world hunger specialists.  It is certainly reasonable to estimate that global biofuel production has been a contributing factor (one of many factors) in at least 100 million human deaths since 1993.  The number of deaths where biofuels were the predominant deciding life or death factor is much more difficult to ascertain.  I do not trust large scale phenomena based statistics, but I am forced by circumstance to seek them out to put global biofuel production into an historical perspective.

     Let's do a simple mind experiment to put things in perspective.  The United Nations estimates that at least 56 million people died worldwide from malnutrition and related illness during the seven years from 2005 to 2012.  That is a low estimate, with other organizations and experts coming up with numbers double that amount.  I do not wish to argue the numbers, but keep in mind the bias of the entity issuing death statistics.  Food charity organizations have a motive to inflate death numbers in order to attract more donations.  Governments have a motive to underestimate death numbers to cover up their own misguided policies.  The United Nation's largest financial contributor is the United States Government.  United Nations officials who say things that American presidents don't want to hear tend to lose their jobs.  That said, let's accept the low United Nations death numbers of about 8 million deaths per year times seven years, which gives us 56 million dead.  Now let’s assign the blame for those deaths and declare that 90% of the deaths were caused by other factors, such as high oil prices, weather, poor regional economies, etc., and that the massive increase in food costs created by global biofuel production are only responsible for just 10% of those deaths.  That gives us a seven year biofuel death toll of 5.6 million.  My claim is that biofuels have killed more than war and terrorism combined over a 20 year time period, which equals approximately 1.76 million human deaths.  So, my shocking claim is really only shocking in its conservative underestimation of the biggest crime of the 21st century. 

     The vast majority of the people who die of malnutrition die for the very same reason; they simply do not have enough money to buy sufficient food to survive.  They are not anorexics, and war caused starvation deaths only add a small percentage to the global death numbers.  High food prices kill people in mass numbers.  That is a proven fact.  Biofuel advocates were warned far in advance by respected scientists and economists that biofuel production would increase malnutrition deaths globally, but they did not care.  Political ambition and greed won out, and millions of unimportant and nameless people (in our leaders' eyes) died.  Now ask yourself who has a strong motive to either ignore or denounce those who try to bring the real biofuel story to light.  That is why I keep my claim modest and mathematically bulletproof.

2)  Higher cost - Without forced government mandates to use ethanol and biodiesel, there would be no significant free market demand for biofuels in the United States.  Ethanol contains 33% less energy than gasoline, so it takes 15 gallons of pure ethanol to travel the same number of miles that could be traveled using just 10 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline.  Our politicians have effectively mandated that we all get lower gas mileage at a time we are paying record high prices at the pump.  Ethanol fuel always contains small amounts of water and absorbs even more water from the atmosphere unless stored in tightly sealed containers.  This means ethanol cannot be pumped through existing gasoline pipelines due to rust and corrosion problems.  Ethanol is destructive to the fuel systems of boats and corrodes fiberglass gas tanks.  Both ethanol and biodiesel increase engine maintenance costs and lower engine reliability, a particularly significant issue for light aircraft owners.

     William Jaeger, an Oregon State University agricultural economist, found that to achieve a given improvement in energy independence using ethanol from corn, biodiesel from rapeseed (canola oil), and ethanol from wood-based cellulose at maximum estimated scales of production in Oregon would lead to a net energy gain of just two-thirds of one percent of Oregon’s annual energy use.  None of the biofuels were found to be marketable without forced government mandates, and the much hyped cellulosic ethanol was found to be the most expensive of all the biofuels to produce.  [See Biofuel Potential in Oregon (PDF).  Jaeger stated that "Given currently available technologies, it is difficult to see the net contribution of biofuels rising above 1% of our current fossil fuel energy consumption – for either Oregon or the U.S." - From Biofuels in Oregon from an Economic and Policy Perspective (PDF)

     To calculate the true cost of biofuels, you must add together all of their negatives: the high direct cost of producing the fuel, increased cost of food worldwide, loss of water used for irrigation, mechanical damage done to vehicles that use biofuels, and damage done to the environment itself.  Judged in total, biofuels are tremendously more expensive than using gasoline and diesel fuel made from oil.  Global biofuel production has also raised the cost of farmland all over the world, which has increased pressure on food prices everywhere.  

3)  Environmental damage - When you try to grow both fuel and food at the same time, you greatly increase the rate of topsoil erosion, because disturbing the land by tilling and harvesting makes soils vulnerable to wind and rain.  Globally, topsoil is being lost ten times faster than it is being replenished, and 30% of the world's arable land has become unproductive in the past 40 years due to erosion.  The human race would quickly starve to death without topsoil, and the USA is in serious jeopardy of losing adequate food growing capacity within 100 years or less due to erosion.  Biofuel production is helping clog the Mississippi and other rivers with topsoil from our prime growing areas.  In 1850, Iowa prairie soils had about 12-16 inches of topsoil, but now have only about 6-8 inches.  We are continuing to lose Iowa topsoil at a rate of approximately 30 tons of topsoil per hectare (10,000 square meters) per year.  As it takes nature hundreds of years to replace just 1 inch of lost topsoil, ask biofuel advocates if helping to destroy the ability of future generations to grow food is a worthy environmental goal.

     Biofuel production also harms the environment by encouraging the destruction of forests, which are needed to soak up excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that is blamed for global warming, and the two great sponges of carbon dioxide are the oceans and the forests.  According to some scientists, the oceans may be losing their ability to absorb CO2 as they are becoming increasingly acidic due to pollution, so if we also destroy our forests greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere will increase.  If the global warming theory is true, use of biofuels will dramatically speed up global warming because the entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while destroying native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we breathe.

     Biofuel production transports carbon into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered (trapped) in soils and native vegetation.  In gaseous form these carbon based molecules, such as carbon dioxide and methane, act as an automobile windshield and hold in heat gained from solar radiation.  It has been reported that in 2009 Indonesia became the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, in large part due to deforestation caused by ever expanding biofuel farming.  The journal SCIENCE published the Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, which states that the production of biofuels from grains or switchgrass greatly increases the release of greenhouse gases and is far worse for the environment than using gasoline.  The authors found that "Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.  Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."

     Scientists point out that nitrogen fertilizers, which are made from natural gas, coal, and mined minerals, react with soil to unleash large amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas estimated to be 296 times more effective at trapping the earth's heat than CO2.  According to the study, N2O release from agro-biofuel production (274KB study PDF), rapeseed biodiesel and corn-ethanol production unleashes more greenhouse gas than using fossil fuels.  "Biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn, depending on N fertilizer uptake efficiency by the plants, can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings."  Dr. Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to estimate that U.S. plans to expand corn-ethanol production through the year 2022 will increase greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 6%, not including the large additional greenhouse gas release due to land use changes

     Biofuel advocates ignore the fact that when we pump up grain prices through biofuel production, we raise grain prices all over the world, which gives other countries a strong financial incentive to burn down more rainforests in order to plant more food.  United States corn-ethanol production is a major driving force in the rapid destruction of the Amazon basin.  [newspaper story with pictures]  A Stanford University study confirms biofuel production speeds destruction of tropical forests "We can't find a way that it makes greenhouse gas sense to grow ethanol in the United States," says Holly Gibbs of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment.  A 2008 study found that corn-ethanol biofuel production will cause a 10 to 34% increase in nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers due to fertilizer run-off, thus increasing the size of the DEAD ZONE in the Gulf of Mexico.  [study abstract]  Biofuels production also dramatically increases the use of fossil fuel derived insecticides, which are blamed for killing frogs and bees, and causing neurological damage in humans.  

4)  Water shortages - Biofuel crop production causes water shortages because irrigation water is taken away from our shrinking supplies of safe drinking and agricultural water.  There is not enough salt free water in the world to grow biofuel crops and still provide essential utility water for our homes, and to grow sufficient food for humans to survive.  It takes 9,000 gallons of water to produce just 1 gallon of biodiesel made from soybeans, so we need to save our very limited supplies of ground water to grow food, not fuel.  Even without biofuel production we are turning vast areas of land into desert every year through loss of topsoil due to farming for essential food.  

5)  It's a lie - The Barack Obama "biofuel energy independence plan" is a scientific hoax and an economic fraud because current United States biofuel production methods use so much energy to create biofuels that they are simply not worth the effort.  Biofuel advocates often distort energy efficiency calculations by leaving out essential energy inputs required to make fuel.  The average American does not understand that when you pour nitrogen fertilizers on crops, you are literally pouring on fossil fuel energy.  Nitrogen fertilizers are so full of chemical energy potential that they are used to make explosives, so when you grow biofuels only part of the plant's energy accumulation comes from sunlight, and the rest comes from the fossil fuel energy we feed them.  Rather than use natural gas to make fertilizer to grow biofuel crops, it would be more efficient to alter our cars to run on the natural gas directly.

     "The following are the major energy inputs to industrial corn farming: nitrogen fertilizer (all fossil energy), phosphate, potash and lime (mostly fossil energy), herbicides and insecticides (all fossil energy), fossil fuels used = diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas, electricity (almost all fossil energy), transportation (all fossil energy), corn seeds and irrigation (mostly fossil energy), infrastructure (mostly fossil energy), labor (mostly fossil energy).  Corn produced at a large expense of fossil energy is then transformed, with even more fossil energy, into pure ethanol." -  Tad W. Patzek

     Politicians hope that second generation biofuel crops will generate more energy at greater efficiency, but those schemes have yet to be proven in the real world.  Professor David Pimentel states that "Cellulosic ethanol is touted as the replacement for corn ethanol.  Unfortunately, cellulosic biomass contains less than 1/3rd the amount of starches and sugars in corn and requires major fossil energy inputs to release the tightly bound starches and sugars for ethanol conversion.  About 170% more energy (oil and gas) is required to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than the ethanol produced."

     Biofuel advocates falsely claim that ethanol is a "clean fuel" that will reduce air pollution.  Ethanol blended fuels burn cleaner on a per gallon basis, but not on a miles traveled basis because ethanol contains 33% less energy than gasoline.  Ethanol blended fuels actually emit more CO2 per miles driven than ordinary gasoline in addition to emitting more CO2 during their manufacture.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol increases the production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 4 to 7% over gasoline, and emits acetaldehyde, a probable carcinogen.

6)  It's politics and greed, not science.  The biofuel hoax was created by domestic American politics and corporate greed.  Ambitious young biofuel entrepreneurs and giant agricultural corporations smelled the money to be made, and lobbied Congress in hopes of turning the farm belt into the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy, even if the energy they supply comes at the cost of human starvation and accelerated environmental damage.  Both the Democratic and Republican parties desire the farm vote, and farm belt politician Barack Obama was flown around the country during the 2008 presidential campaign on corporate jets owned by the giant corn-ethanol corporation, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).  During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama went on NBC’s "Meet the Press" and admitted to the late Tim Russert that biofuels were causing rapid food price inflation.  Obama then stated that he would "rethink" his own energy policy.  A week later Obama toured a biodiesel factory with Joe Biden and declared it a great success.  Obama was repeatedly warned about the destructive nature of biofuels by his own advisers, yet he continued to promote a disastrous energy policy in order to win the Iowa Caucus and the general election.  Obama won the 2008 presidential election by exploiting farm belt greed for his own personal political gain.

Al Gore's ethanol confession:

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol."

"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake.  The energy conversion ratios are at best very small."

"It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."

"The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices."  "The competition with food prices is real."

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

- Al Gore ignored numerous warnings by responsible scientists that ethanol production harms the environment and raises food prices because he wanted to win the Iowa Caucus.  According to Goldman Sachs analysts, the United States used 41% of its corn crop in 2010 to make ethanol. 
In 2009 Obama appointed a former Monsanto Vice President, Michael Taylor, as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration.  Obama is now under heavy criticism for allowing the production of genetically engineered food without proper testing.  Monsanto is one of the largest players in the global ethanol scam and a major campaign contributor to the Obama presidential campaign.  A petition signed by thousands of people has been submitted to the FDA opposing Obama's crony appointment because scientific research has found that some genetically modified foods can cause severe allergic reactions, chronic illnesses, and cancer.

7)  The outlook for biofuels is dismal - All present and future biofuels have the same problems.  Biofuel crops are all too low in energy, too light in weight, and thus too bulky and expensive to transport to be of any real value.  Biofuels require too much land, water, and fertilizer resources to be beneficial.  By contrast, dirty old coal, which we need to replace as an energy source, has been historically successful as a fuel because it is very heavy and compact, high in energy content, and thus makes energy sense to transport.  Coal already exists in the ground so you don't have to plant it, water it, and fertilize it.  All biofuel schemes, planned or imagined, will never amount to a hill of beans because of the basic limitations of their solar based production process.  A requirement for vast amounts of sunlight will always equal a requirement for vast amounts of land area to collect that sunlight, thus solar power schemes can never replace the massive concentrated energy reservoir of fossil fuels.

     Growing switchgrass to produce ethanol from lignocellulose has most of the same drawbacks as making ethanol from corn.  We will use land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor to grow switchgrass that will be diverted from food production, with soaring food prices the result.  If we grow switchgrass on land currently used to graze cattle, we will reduce beef and milk production.  If we grow switchgrass on unused "marginal" prairie lands, we will soon turn those marginal lands into a new dust bowl due to the erosion of fragile dry soils.  

     Switchgrass and other biofuel weeds will be grown by ordinary, profit motive driven farmers, not by environmentally trained scientists.  Farmers will grow switchgrass on land that could be used to grow corn, wheat, or soybeans, and farmers will want to maximize yield so they will use lots of fertilizer to increase output.  The plans biofuel idealists are trying to sell the American public will never produce the kind of "green," food friendly energy resource they promise.  The next great scandal will be how to get rid of all the millions of acres of invasive, deep rooted biofuel weeds once society inevitably realizes that even growing second generation biofuel crops is a tragic mistake. 

     In practical terms, there is not enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel plants to meet the world's energy demands.  According to professors James Jordan and James Powell, "Allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline.  The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland.  At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline.  The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually.  Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7% of our auto and truck transport demands.  Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15% of the demand."  [See The False Hope of Biofuels]

     Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel.  To make biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil instead of electricity.  Researchers brag that algae can produce 15 times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol, but that still means we would need an impossibly large number of acres (about 133 million acres) of concrete lined open-air algae ponds to meet our highway energy demands.  Those schemes that grow algae in closed reactor vessels, without sunlight, necessitate the algae being fed sugars or starches as a source of chemical energy.  The sugars or starches must then be made from corn, wheat, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka.  If we construct genetically engineered super-algae that are capable of out-competing native algae strains that contaminate open air algae ponds, the new gene-modified algae will be immediately carried to lakes, reservoirs, and oceans all over the world in the feathers of birds, with unknown and possibly catastrophic results.  If we try to guard algae from contamination by growing them in sealed containers under glass or in plastic tubes, the construction costs for building large enough areas to collect sufficient sunlight would be prohibitive. The current cost of biodiesel made from algae is about $14.00 a gallon.

     No genetically engineered algae or bacteria designed for biofuel production can ever be isolated from our biosphere because of the inevitability of leaks and accidents, which will occur very quickly in an endeavor of such gigantic physical proportions.  That means any monster organism you create will be free to travel around the world at will.  One well known genetics entrepreneur in Southern California is now trying to create a genetically engineered super-bacteria that turns carbon dioxide into methane gas in order to manufacture biofuels.  If that bacteria escapes his laboratory it could transform Earth's atmosphere into a methane filled hell that could kill off the human race.  Some scientists now speculate that 252 million years ago our biosphere was decimated by a killer microbe that spewed methane gas into Earth's atmosphere, triggering a global catastrophe that wiped out more than 90% of marine species and about 70% of all land vertebrates.  [see news story]  

     Using "agricultural waste" to make biofuels has its own problems.  [See soil report]  Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the most potent greenhouse gas of all, nitrous oxide.  Residual post-harvest crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion increases dramatically.  If we mine our topsoil for energy we will end up committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire.  [See Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs, by Professor David Pimentel]

     Using wood chips to make ethanol or biodiesel sounds like a good idea until you remember that we currently use wood chips to make fuel pellets for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand and one building products.  The idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to salvage underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive.  Our forests are already stressed just producing lumber without tasking them with producing liquid biofuels for automobiles.  Such schemes would inevitably drive up the price of everything made from wood, creating yet another resource crisis.  Wood burning power plants also emit more air pollution per megawatt than coal power plants.  Making fuel from true garbage, such as used cooking oil and winery waste, is environmentally harmless, but is it really worth the large infrastructure and vehicle maintenance costs required to sell ethanol and biodiesel as fuels?  Our usable true waste resources are very limited in quantity, and not a major energy solution for a nation that uses over 8 billion barrels of crude oil every year. 

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel.  These strategies are not sustainable." David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University

On biofuel advocates: You have money and media access, and now everybody believes that two plus two equals twenty-two.” Tad W. Patzek, professor of geoengineering at the University of Texas in Austin, and formerly of UC Berkeley 

"Every day more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds.  The situation will only get worse.  It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles.  It would also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production.  We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to live." — Professors James Jordan and James Powell, Maglev Research Center at Polytechnic University of New York 

8)  Political instability - Dramatic food price inflation created by biofuel production is causing political instability around the globe, because food products are sold in a worldwide marketplace just like oil.  There have been food riots in 37 countries, including relatively wealthy Italy The great call of ordinary people around the world is for FOOD SUPPLY SECURITY, not for biofuels, yet Barack Obama continues to push his incredibly destructive idea that "We should use our farmland to produce both food and fuel."

9)  It's a strategic national security disaster - In the years before biofuel production, the United States had large food reserves kept in storage due to the excess bounty created by modern agricultural technology.  Those days are long gone, and global food reserves are now at historic lows.  In earth's history there have always been great natural disasters that periodically cause poor crop harvests, such as crop diseases, insect plagues, droughts, floods, impacts of asteroids and comets, and volcanic eruptions that throw up so much dust and noxious gas into the atmosphere that sunlight is reduced for a year or longer.  The eruption of the island of Krakatau in 1883 produced a 1.2 degree Celsius global temperature decline that did not return to normal until 1888, and caused poor crop harvests all over the world.

     There are mammoth volcanoes all over the world, from Iceland, to Asia, to South America, to Yellowstone Park, which are capable of having devastating effects on our atmosphere and thus our food production.  By using agriculture to produce energy for both transportation and human caloric intake, we have eliminated our strategic cushion of food reserves.  When global disaster inevitably strikes again, starvation will set in quickly because of government biofuel mandates.  If we use nonagricultural energy sources for producing fuel for transportation, specifically the new low cost and nontoxic nuclear energy technologies (LENR and simplified hot fusion - see below), we will not suffer the double systemic insult of food and fuel shortages.  Large scale biofuel production, which depends on normal climactic conditions to grow crops, is a severe threat to our national security.

10)  It's a mathematical impossibility - It has been estimated that every year the human race burns the fossilized remnants of approximately 400 years worth of total planetary vegetation in the condensed form of fossil fuels: coal, oil, natural gas, etc.  "The fossil fuels burned in 1997 were created from organic matter containing 44 × 1018 g C, which is >400 times the net primary productivity (NPP) of the planet’s current biota."  This quote comes from Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy, by Professor Jeffrey S. Dukes of the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University.  His figures makes sense if you remember that the earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and you consider the rapid rate at which human beings are burning up fossil fuels.  Dukes estimated that it would take approximately 22% of all current above ground plant growth on land to replace fossil fuels for the year 1997 in terms of raw energy potential, a number that is now out of date due to increased fossil fuel use.  The old 22% estimate also does not account for the tremendous energy expenditures required to transform food derived and cellulose derived biomass into usable liquid fuel.  As the United States uses a disproportionately large percentage of the world's fossil fuels every year, the amount of U.S. land biomass we would need to convert to ethanol would be impossibly high.  No park or backyard would be safe from the biofuel harvesters.

     It "takes a huge amount of land to produce a modest amount of energy."  Even if we used "every piece of wood on the planet, every piece of grass eaten by livestock, and all food crops, that much biomass could only provide about 30 percent of the world’s total energy needs."Dr. Timothy Searchinger, Princeton University

     "All sources of renewable liquid energy are inadequate when set against the net energy density that is achieved from extracting oil from wells, which we estimate as being the equivalent of capturing all 10,000 parts in 10,000 of insolation (incident solar radiation), or even from producing synthetic gasoline from coal — equivalent to capturing 2200 parts in 10,000 of insolation.  3 parts per 10,000 is a pale shadow of the fossil fuel net energy densities which have been the sine qua non of the 4400 million population growth in the last century." - Andrew R.B. Ferguson, editor Optimum Population Trust Journal  [see article]

Please support and promote The National Food Security Act, which is needed to protect the affordability and long term survivability of the human food supply.

See Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory scientist David Fridley's video, Biofuel & Ethanol: The Real Story.

Wind Energy

See the musical YouTube video, Windmills Kill Birds.

NEWS!  See Germany's Green Energy Disaster.

     Economist Michael J. Trebilcock studied wind power and found that Wind power is a complete disaster.  He points out that the United States Government subsidizes wind power at a rate of $23.34 per MWh compared to just $.25 for natural gas, $.44 for coal, $.67 for hydroelectric power, and $1.59 for nuclear power (2008 EIA statistics).  Trebilcock discovered that Denmark has over 6,000 wind turbines that supplement its energy grid, but has not been able to close even a single fossil fuel power plant as a result, because extra fossil energy is needed when the wind stops blowing.  In 2006 carbon dioxide emissions in Denmark rose by a whopping 36%, showing that large scale wind power projects do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in real-world situations.  Because of wind power, Denmark now has the highest electricity rates in Europe.  A study of Spain's energy program found that for every job created by state funded wind power schemes, 2.2 jobs were lost due to higher energy costs, and each new wind power job cost almost $2,000,000. in government subsidies.  To meet 100% of United States electricity demand with wind power would require impossible weather conditions and a wind farm covering an area larger than Texas and Louisiana combined.

     Because of their extremely low power to weight ratio, windmills require the use of huge amounts of steel and other materials in their construction.  Wind turbines are being sold to the public as a carbon neutral product, but manufacturing windmill components is not a carbon neutral process.  Windmills are mainly made from power generated by burning coal and other fossil fuels.  Because of the enormous amount of resources required for windmill construction, and their intermittent and unreliable performance, windmills will not reduce CO2 emissions.  Building wind turbine farms covering vast areas of land will kill large numbers of birds and bats, and torture animals and humans living nearby with audible sounds as well as infrasound.  Infrasounds are very low frequencies below 20Hz that travel long distances and can cause headaches, insomnia, and other serious negative health effects.

NEWS!  T. Boone Pickens says "I've lost my ass in wind power." - "The jobs are in the oil and gas industry" - Pickens went on to say that "He (Obama) needs to explain to his people, ‘Hey, we can get on everything green.  We can get on everything renewable.  Then the cost of power will go up ten times.'  So be careful when you start fooling with it.”  According to "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," "The states with (wind power/renewable energy) mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them.”

Solar Energy

NEWS!  Solar provides just 0.2% of U.S. electric supply!  NEWS!  Solar energy projects fry birds!  NEWS!  Video - Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours!

     Simple passive solar design features for home construction and passive solar hot water heating are sound investments, but solar power is a wasteful and counterproductive investment for large scale energy production.

1)  You don't get any solar energy at night; you get less on cloudy days, less in the morning, and less in the late afternoon.  That makes large scale solar  power schemes horribly inefficient no matter how high we can pump up the theoretical peak output of solar panels.  The cost of energy storage systems, batteries and other complex systems on top of high panel costs makes solar impossibly expensive for large scale use.  We need synthetic liquid fuels to run farm equipment, cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, etc., and to make synthetic fertilizers.  We can manufacture these fuels with solar power, but at many times the cost of using new, low cost nuclear power technology or natural gas.  You have to run synthetic fuel plants 24 hours a day to be economically viable.  If you must use fossil fuel or nuclear energy backup power at night to keep a synthetic fuel plant running, then why bother to have solar power at all?  Duplication of energy resources is a needless expense.  Any power plant must output power 24-7 to be economically valuable for large scale use. 

2)  Solar power advocates have suggested that we could satisfy 69% of United States electricity needs for the year 2050 by covering 34,000 square miles of our Southwestern desert with solar panels.  The project would require building long transmission lines and storing excess daytime energy overnight as compressed gas.  The cost per kilowatt hour would be orbital, not just stratospheric, and necessitate massive government subsidies.  When used for large scale energy production, solar power schemes have an extremely large ecological footprint.  [See story in Scientific American]   

3)  Solar panels will always be exposed to the weather, and their lifespan is short, about 25 years.  Unlike other power systems, solar panels cannot be repaired and upgraded to extend their usefulness beyond their very limited lifespan.  This fact dramatically increases their cost per kilowatt hour compared to other more affordable alternatives.  Who will guard solar panel installations covering millions of acres?  Solar panel theft is a big problem in California right now.  Giant solar ovens using mirrors are less likely to be targets of theft and are less expensive on a BTU/watts collected basis, but the land area required to produce significant amounts of energy makes them a bad joke.  Solar power is great for running pocket calculators, remote vacation cabins, and other small scale HIGH COST per watt uses, but solar power is inherently the wrong choice for large scale power grid use.  

4)  As William Tucker points out in Food Riots Made in the USA, solar power is an extraterrestrial nuclear power system where the nuclear reactor is located 93 million miles away from us in outer space,...the sun.  We need terrestrial nuclear reactors right here on earth so we can affordably capture their HIGHLY CONCENTRATED energy without taking up huge amounts of land space.  Our extraterrestrial nuclear power source is great for growing crops, but its output is far too diffuse and intermittent for practical large scale electricity production.

Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) 

The E-Cat

one megawatt reactor
                                                               Andrea Rossi inspecting one megawatt E-Cat reactor        First commercially installed E-Cat reactor (North Carolina)

From Wired Magazine,  THE COLD FUSION RACE JUST HEATED UP.  In addition to presenting many proven public facts, the article states that the “Russian media has repeated a rumor that President Obama discussed Chinese E-Cat production under license with Xi Jinping in his recent visit, a move that might destroy Russia's vital energy exports.”  Scientists in Russia and the Ukraine have reported to have replicated "the Rossi effect" in their own laboratories.  At least one scientist in the USA, George Miley (Lenuco LLC), reports success with nano-particle sized nickel dust and hydrogen gas.  Hints and rumors abound that suggest what is publicly known about independent replications of the Rossi effect around the world is "just the tip of the iceberg."  
NEWS - Airbus Files Patent for LENR ‘Power-Generating Device’.

     On October 8th, 2014, an independent test report of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat reactor was released by respected scientists from three different universities.  The tests were conducted in Lugano, Switzerland, at a independent laboratory to avoid any question of fraud.  The tests show conclusively that the E-Cat reactor produces large amounts of excess heat that cannot be explained by any known chemical process.  Analysis of the fuel before and after the test showed 
isotopic changes that can only be explained by some form of nuclear reaction.

     The E-Cat (Hot-Cat version) fuel contained approximately 55% nickel powder (.99999% pure), about 39%
iron powder, which is used to break H2 gas into H1 gas, and approximately 6% lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), which is used as a source of hydrogen gas and as a catalyst.  No radioactive materials are used in the reactor and no radiation was detected emitting from the reactor during testing.  Almost everything in the reactor and fuel is recyclable.  
     The reactor was run in a low efficiency test mode designed for the most accurate energy input and heat output measurements, and thus was not run in the normal commercially useful self-sustain mode which produces a much higher efficiency, which is expressed as coefficient of performance, or COP.  If a reactor has a COP of 3, it means the reactor outputs 3 times more energy than put into the reactor.  During this test in low efficiency mode the E-Cat produced between 3.2 and 3.6 times the energy put into the reactor.

     If the reactor had been set up in its normal high efficiency self-sustain mode, the COP would have likely been 8 or more, an estimate derived from previous test results of earlier generation E-Cats.  No official COP number has yet been claimed for the newest generation E-Cat, but even the earliest, unrefined versions claimed a COP of 6 in self-sustain mode.  Testing in self-sustain mode would be difficult because energy input would be turned on 25% of the time and turned off 75% of the time. The scientists wanted an easy test to prove the basic principle, not determine the highest possible COP, so they kept the energy input turned on 100% of the time, which naturally lowered the energy efficiency and COP of the reactor.

----------Quoted from the report----------

     "The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half.  The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively.  The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 Mwh.”

     "A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES.  The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially.  Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run."

See "Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel" at:

"Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling", by Carl-Oscar Gullström, who is a doctoral student in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, is said to explain the recent Swiss test results.  
Gullström's ideas are appreciated by some members of the independent testing team and by Andrea Rossi himself. 

   Industrial Heat, LLC has installed a one megawatt E-Cat reactor at a customer’s factory for a year long operational test.  The reactor is currently producing heat for an industrial process.  At some point in the near future tours of the factory installed E-Cat will be allowed.  
NEWS!  After analyzing the results of the Lugano test, which Rossi called a "goldmine of information", Andrea Rossi and associates have changed the fuel composition and control system of E-Cat reactors.  Rossi claims these changes have allowed the industrially installed one megawatt E-Cat reactor in North Carolina to run for longer periods of time with no energy input whatsoever, resulting in a higher COP.   He claims that the industrial customer is now very pleased with the energy savings the E-Cat power plant provides.

     Well known passionate environmentalist, Tom Darden, is Chairman of Industrial Heat LLC, and CEO of Cherokee Industrial Partners.  Darden says he does not care about the money, only in reducing air pollution.  Darden stated "I’m serious — it’s about air pollution and coal . . . Our company is called Industrial Heat.  Our job is to make industrial heat and industrial heat is made by coal… We don’t think any energy should be made by coal, so that’s why I’m doing this.  This could be a way to eliminate the use of coal."
                               E-Cat reactor cell                                                               3 E-Cats in metal casings                                                             One E-Cat reactor cell weighs 452 grams.
     Italian engineer Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) LENR reactor is fueled by micrometer sized nickel dust and hydrogen.  The nickel powder is processed to increase the number of surface protrusions to provide greater area for heat producing reactions with hydrogen.  
LENR may eventually replace the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas for heat.  See E-Cat patent application.     

     Rossi claims that LENR can give the world electricity at a cost of just one cent per kilowatt hour when produced by large scale LENR power plants.  Even if we skeptically triple that cost to 3 cents per kilowatt hour, it is still an incredible bargain. 
As LENR is a relatively new and inherently nontoxic technology, there are few major regulatory barriers to slow its rapid technological advance.  The growth of LENR technology may thus be as exponential in progression as the use of personal computers in the 1990s.  No precious metals are used in E-Cat or Defkalion Green Technologies reactors, and any company with the technological skills required to build an air conditioner can produce them in large numbers on assembly lines.  That means even poor, relatively undeveloped countries will be able to manufacture them.  LENR devices will eventually be used to power cars, trucks, trains, ships, aircraft, and spacecraft.  Imagine a luxury sedan you could drive for many thousands of miles without refueling, or a small aircraft you could fly from New York to Beijing nonstop at low cost. 

You can keep up with fast moving E-Cat events through

Solar Hydrogen Trends

"The US government can leverage this technology to pull itself from under this burdensome debt of 20 trillion dollars in a very short period of time." —  Jack Aganyan and Konstantin Balakiryan, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.

Solar Hydrogen Trends claims to have developed a 250 pound footlocker sized LENR reactor that can be used to transmute water, including the oxygen content of water, into 96.7% pure hydrogen gas.  They claim that the cost of producing a quantity of hydrogen gas with the energy content of one gallon of gasoline would be about nine cents.  The cost of producing electricity through burning this low cost hydrogen gas would be about .3 cents per kilowatt hour.  They state that "The technology provides a multifactorial hydrogen reactor with elevated hydrogen production due to a set of sixteen (16) physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds.  The hydrogen reactor uses water as main fuel and its emissions are 100% clean (clean air)."

Solar Hydrogen Trends team
                                               Jack Aganyan - president                                  Konstantin Balakiryan, PhD - top scientist                  Kirill Gichunts - business mamager with degree from U.C. Berkeley
     Solar Hydrogen Trends first used AirKinetics, Inc. for testing, and they posted a signed test data page on their website.  In July, 2014, Solar Hydrogen Trends revealed even more positive test results, the latest conducted by TRC Solutions.  See the TRC test report pdf.  Solar Hydrogen Trends states that their discovery was purely accidental, and a result of experiments in how to extract precious metals from nature at higher rates of efficiency.  They state that this technology can be scaled up to replace fission nuclear power plants, and scaled down to power automobiles, trucks, trains, ships, and jet aircraft.  It would be an easy engineering task to design a 747 jetliner that runs on hydrogen gas as the water fuel contains more energy per pound than jet fuel.  A hydrogen reactor large enough to power a typical mid sized automobile would be about the size of a carton of cigarettes.  Should Saudi Arabia be worried?  Solar Hydrogen Trend's top scientist, Professor Konstantin Balakiryan, states that by passing just one barrel of ordinary water through their "Symphony7A" reactor they can produce hydrogen fuel with the energy equivalent of burning three barrels of oil.  NEWS!  Solar Hydrogen Trends reports yet another positive test of their reactor was conducted on March 10th, 2015, this time by Horizon Air Measurement Services, Inc.  See press release and test results.

PERSONAL NOTEFrom my point of view, Solar Hydrogen Trends is an intriguing WILD CARD company that we should follow with a combination of caution and hope.  Professor Konstantin Balakiryan, their top scientist, was the head of the physics, chemistry, and mathematics department at the Russian University of Friendship in Moscow.  "His primary research included study of fast processes in liquids and acoustical resonance; physical phenomena associated with acoustic waves in water solutions from infrasound to hypersound, and the use of acoustics as a tool to investigate other significant phenomena."  He has also has received medical patents, including techniques for enabling rapid healing of displasia.  Konstantin Balakiryan speaks Armenian, which is his native language, and is fluent in Russian and Georgian.  He can also carry on a reasonable conversation in English, Spanish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, and Polish.  The entire Solar Hydrogen Trends staff has excellent credentials, so those who would dismiss their claims as impossible might want to wait a little to see how this news plays out.  Would such smart, well educated people really try to commit a fraud that could only end in their disgrace?  At his advanced age, Konstantin certainly values his excellent reputation more than money.  I have never tested their device and do not know for sure that it works as advertised, but I certainly do not dismiss their technology out of hand, which now has third party verification from at least three respected testing laboratories.  

     What makes their story believable to me is the fact they state this difficult to explain phenomena was discovered by accident.  In my opinion, no one in their right mind would consider wasting time trying to achieve the cold fission of oxygen atoms into multiple hydrogen atoms.  The fact that it sounds so preposterous makes it more believable to me.  They say that it is a "gift from nature", and they do not brag that they created this super-technology through planned effort.  Once they discovered that their precious metals purification device produced copious amounts of hydrogen gas, they switched from looking for gold to producing low cost hydrogen gas.  If their product does work, then the energy crisis is over because their device has an incredibly high COP, 
measured at 900 to over 1,400 during three separate tests.  This technology would be more easily usable for all applications than any energy source in history, and would have massive potential for producing chemicals as well.  Creating an automobile or jet aircraft powered with their technology could conceivably be accomplished in a matter of months, not years or decades.  This 21st century technology could transform the energy marketplace overnight if it is 100% proven and accepted as fact by market traders.  The trading market price we pay for oil, coal, and natural gas is based on expectations for future demand and a finite supply.  If market traders understand that there will be no future demand for using fossil fuels as an energy source, then what will happen to the price of oil, coal, and natural gas?

     If this technology is real and not some horrendous gas measuring error, then the best automotive application might be through use of an internal combustion engine, such as the new EcoMotors International opposed-piston opposed-cylinder (OPOC) engine.  This might be less expensive than using a fuel cell, as the EcoMotors engine is highly compact and uses 50% fewer parts than a typical automobile engine.  96.7% pure hydrogen gas can easily be burned in an internal combustion engine, but might not work well in a fuel cell unless the fuel cell is custom designed to handle impurities.  The EcoMotors engine has low construction costs and is highly efficient, and as a bonus it produces lots of torque.  The EcoMotors engine is currently being manufactured to run on diesel fuel, but the company states that it can easily be altered to run on natural gas, and thus presumably on hydrogen gas as well.  Building an automobile with this combination of technologies would be a dream come true for automobile enthusiasts, but is it real?  We should know the answer to that question fairly soon. 

Is this our future?
Lockheed Martin jetliner

Lockheed Martin supersonic jetliner concept could be adapted to hydrogen gas fuel.

Defkalion Green Technologies

     Defkalion Green Technologies states that their Hyperion LENR reactor cores contain ordinary H2 hydrogen gas, nickel powder, and proprietary materials and structures to aid in the reaction.  Simple resistance heating elements are turned on to excite the hydrogen gas.  The naturally occurring H2 atoms are further excited by bursts of electrical discharges via a spark plug-like device which breaks the H2 into H1 gas and transforms H1 atoms into Rydberg State Hydrogen (RSH) atoms, which have very large elliptical electron (cloud) orbits.  The excited RSH hydrogen atoms are then squeezed into the nickel atom latticework.  "For a brief period of around 10 -13th second, each RSH proton is very close to its electron.  Then the RSH nuclei is a masqueraded neutron.  As a result, Coulomb forces between such nuclei are almost zero during this short time window."  The resulting reaction releases gamma rays and light which are absorbed inside the reactor to produce heat.  It is interesting to note that Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all.  Unlike Andrea Rossi's design, resistance heating elements are only required during the initial start-up phase of the reaction.
H1 hydrogen atom - round orbit cloudelliptical orbit of electron cloud

Hyperion reactor prototype

Read about Defkalion's plan to produce electricity for one cent per kilowatt hour in an interview with Alex Xanthoulis

Other LENR pioneers

Brillouin Energy Corporation has functioning LENR technology similar to Rossi and Defkalion.  One device they have in development is a simple hot water heater that uses ordinary water (which releases hydrogen) and nickel as fuel.  This device has a low COP but is inexpensive to build and could safely be used in homes to replace standard home water heaters.  Brillouin also has a more complex nickel powder and hydrogen gas device in development with a potentially higher COP.  Brillouin has signed a licensing contract with a South Korean company that wishes to use their clean energy technology.  Brillouin has an interesting YouTube animation video showing what they believe is the underlying mechanism of their LENR device, which they call a "Control Electron Capture Reaction." See their patent application, Control of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction in Hydrides, and Autonomously Controlled Heat Generation Module.

Global Energy Corporation (GEC) has plans for a hybrid cold fusion-fission reactor, the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion Reactor.  "The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium.  The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear reactors.  The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time."  This reactor design was partially based on breakthrough research conducted by the United States Navy research center, SPAWAR.  More details here.

STMicroelectronics S.R.L. of Switzerland, one of the world’s largest semiconductor companies, has filed a LENR patent application. 

Toyota scientists have replicated Mitsubishi's cold fusion and element transmutation experiments.


     "A cheap, abundant, clean, scalable, portable source of energy will impact EVERYONE." - "Singular solution to peak oil, climate change, fresh water, and associated geopolitical instabilities." - "Transmutation products [of LENR are] most consistent with neutron absorption process."
— Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center

     "The temperature you can get out of [LENR] is interesting.” - “We’ve had to be careful [in our research in] terms of the energetics.  I don’t think there is a power [limitation] problem." — NASA scientist Dennis Bushnell

See NASA pdf files on LENR - Zawodny  Bushnnell  Nelson and NASA-Zawodny LENR patent 

NASA concept LENR space planeNASA LENR rocket conceptspace plane 2

NASA concept for LENR space plane that flies from airport to orbit and back using only one main rocket engine.

It starts with a dream!  LENR Cars is a very small Swiss startup company that hopes to change the world.  How long will it take to create the first affordable LENR powered automobile? 

Here is a partial list of companies and organizations that have reported positive LENR test results.  There are many other organizations, companies, scientific teams, and individual scientists who have also reported positive test results.  No doubt there is also much research that is going on in secret.

In an informative YouTube video, former MIT professor and scientist, the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, detailed the history of the cold fusion cover-up by MIT scientists with financial interests in hot fusion research, and by the United States Patent Office.

NEWS!  Graphical 3D Modeling and Analysis of Molecules and Nanostructures with the BSM-SG Atomic Models  —  Does this explain LENR?  Another theory is Widom Larsen, which is explained on an interesting YouTube program (from 2011) and through a slide show (published in 2014).  Which of the dozens of theories being proposed will win out in the end?

 Simplified hot fusion without expensive lasers

High beta fusion reactor - See the news story and exciting Lockheed Martin video describing a radically new compact hot fusion reactor design the size of a commercial jet engine.  The plasma pressure/magnetic pressure reactor is about 2x2x4 meters in size.  Lockheed Martin hopes to meet global baseload electricity demand by the year 2050. 

Boron-hydrogen fusion - Tri Alpha Energy uses a simplified form of high temperature fusion that uses boron and hydrogen as fuel.  The fusion products are broken up into three helium-4 nuclei and three alpha particles, a process that produces little or no radioactive waste.  Tri Alpha's reactor can theoretically create electricity directly with no turbine required, increasing efficiency while reducing size and construction costs.  Tri Alpha's concept is so appealing that famed Microsoft co-founder, Paul Allen, has invested millions of dollars into the highly secretive Rancho Santa Margarita based company.  Tri Alpha has received additional new funding from the government of Russian on top of private U.S. investors.

Other energy sources

     To lower energy costs in the short term, the United States should tap its large oil and natural gas deposits in the Alaska ANWR oil reserve.  We should open up ANWR's entire 19.6 million acres to oil and gas exploration, because drilling on dry land is extremely safe and has none of the major ecological risks associated with drilling for oil at the bottom of oceans.  The Bakken Oil Formation holds billions of barrels of recoverable oil which we can use without driving up the cost of food.     

     Traditional hydroelectric power plants are useful for large scale energy production because they turn the concentrated kinetic energy of moving water into huge amounts of reliable, continuous electricity.  The amazing Hoover Dam, which spans the Colorado River, has an average annual net electricity generation of 4.2 billion kilowatt hours, which is produced at a cost of about .03 cents per kilowatt hour.  Opportunities to build new hydroelectric projects, such as the Auburn Dam in California, should not be overlooked. 

NEWS!  Please see the thoughtful 44 minute long documentary film, Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off, now on YouTube.  Also see the shocking news story, World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years.  My own views on Climate Change theory are contained in the essay, Moderating Climate Change Hysteria     

Food equals energy and energy equals food!

     The appeal of solar, wind, wave energy, and biofuels is largely about poetry and symbolism, sending a love letter to mother nature saying that we care.  Poetry is fine, but we need huge amounts of energy to support the earth's approximately 7.3 billion human inhabitants, and billions will starve to death if governments try to use poetically correct energy sources as a replacement for fossil fuels.  It takes so much energy to plant, fertilize, harvest, process, and transport crops that any increase in the cost of energy will always result in increased food prices.  We cannot eat symbolism and good intentions.

Please support and promote The National Food Security Act, which is needed to protect the affordability and long term survivability of the human food supply.

Christopher Calder      email = archive100 AT inbox DOT com

Christopher Calder is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocate for world food supply security with no financial interest in any energy related business.