LENR will eradicate all hunger and energy scarcity on the globe

[69ixine]

https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-21-cold ... rcity.html

it's too bad actual rogue countries like eritrea,have too low education to replicate this independantly,I think,if they did it it would make the elephant obvious in the room to all nations,and other nations would see that oil and gas are redundant methods of energy consumption.

[MrMan]

https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-21-cold ... rcity.html

it's too bad actual rogue countries like eritrea,have too low education to replicate this independantly,I think,if they did it it would make the elephant obvious in the room to all nations,and other nations would see that oil and gas are redundant methods of energy consumption.

So the solution to global warming is supposedly to have millions of devices that generates a lot of heat. I wonder if that will heat up the planet more than CO2.

I wonder when this will become economically viable. But will it make sense for every home or car to have it's own nuclear reactor, or will it make more sense for a power plant to make energy from this power source, which one day may become cheap, and then send power through the grid to power houses and cars?

I don't know if there is enough lithium for the batteries to replace our national fleet of private vehicles. For the cobalt issue, Tesla is now using Lithium Phosphate batteries which go shorter distances but do not require cobalt.

Back during the 'Dubya' administration, there was talk of switching to hydrogen cars. That may make sense if nuclear power plants are creating huge amounts of energy during off peak times at night.... which can be used to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen technology is inefficient compared to electric vehicles, but that is because Tesla has invested in bringing down costs of batteries.

[69ixine]

https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-21-cold ... rcity.html

it's too bad actual rogue countries like eritrea,have too low education to replicate this independantly,I think,if they did it it would make the elephant obvious in the room to all nations,and other nations would see that oil and gas are redundant methods of energy consumption.

So the solution to global warming is supposedly to have millions of devices that generates a lot of heat. I wonder if that will heat up the planet more than CO2.

I wonder when this will become economically viable. But will it make sense for every home or car to have it's own nuclear reactor, or will it make more sense for a power plant to make energy from this power source, which one day may become cheap, and then send power through the grid to power houses and cars?

I don't know if there is enough lithium for the batteries to replace our national fleet of private vehicles. For the cobalt issue, Tesla is now using Lithium Phosphate batteries which go shorter distances but do not require cobalt.

Back during the 'Dubya' administration, there was talk of switching to hydrogen cars. That may make sense if nuclear power plants are creating huge amounts of energy during off peak times at night.... which can be used to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen technology is inefficient compared to electric vehicles, but that is because Tesla has invested in bringing down costs of batteries.

They don't generate anymore heat than current devices,MrMan.

one glass of water can power 30,000 homes for a year.Isn't that better?

[MrMan]

https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-21-cold ... rcity.html

it's too bad actual rogue countries like eritrea,have too low education to replicate this independantly,I think,if they did it it would make the elephant obvious in the room to all nations,and other nations would see that oil and gas are redundant methods of energy consumption.

So the solution to global warming is supposedly to have millions of devices that generates a lot of heat. I wonder if that will heat up the planet more than CO2.

I wonder when this will become economically viable. But will it make sense for every home or car to have it's own nuclear reactor, or will it make more sense for a power plant to make energy from this power source, which one day may become cheap, and then send power through the grid to power houses and cars?

I don't know if there is enough lithium for the batteries to replace our national fleet of private vehicles. For the cobalt issue, Tesla is now using Lithium Phosphate batteries which go shorter distances but do not require cobalt.

Back during the 'Dubya' administration, there was talk of switching to hydrogen cars. That may make sense if nuclear power plants are creating huge amounts of energy during off peak times at night.... which can be used to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen technology is inefficient compared to electric vehicles, but that is because Tesla has invested in bringing down costs of batteries.

They don't generate anymore heat than current devices,MrMan.

one glass of water can power 30,000 homes for a year.Isn't that better?

If we all had our own little nuclear generators... which run off of heat and steam engines like most electric power generation systems, then we might have a lot more generators throwing out a lot more heat than we currently have. I am not saying it wouldn't be pretty cool to have that.

I think a valuable piece of information for governments to consider would be to compare individual generators to having centralized power facilities. Of course, the power companies would probably want to centralize it, if they could even exist economically. Every building might have to hire a nuclear tech and electrician if they each had their own nuclear gensets, or maybe vendors could handle set up. But I would imagine centralized facilities could be optimized to produce less heat (if that is even a valid concern) and it might be cheaper to do this on a massive scale. It might be economically feasible for a large plant to use excess production during off peak hours to produce hydrogen for hydrogen cars, or any other valuable output for night production of electricity, while the individual consumer who does not specialize in these areas would not have time to borrow. That would work in favor of centralized production having an advantage over individualized production.

I would imagine batteries and hydrogen cars would probably make more sense than everyone having a nuclear generator in their car. I don't now if we have enough lithium in the world to make the high output batteries, and I suspect new battery technologies to be a hot area if fission becomes __economically__ feasible as a means of producing power.

It may also make sense to use petroleum for automobiles, though there is a lot of political pressure against that idea.

[69ixine]

https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-21-cold ... rcity.html

it's too bad actual rogue countries like eritrea,have too low education to replicate this independantly,I think,if they did it it would make the elephant obvious in the room to all nations,and other nations would see that oil and gas are redundant methods of energy consumption.

So the solution to global warming is supposedly to have millions of devices that generates a lot of heat. I wonder if that will heat up the planet more than CO2.

I wonder when this will become economically viable. But will it make sense for every home or car to have it's own nuclear reactor, or will it make more sense for a power plant to make energy from this power source, which one day may become cheap, and then send power through the grid to power houses and cars?

I don't know if there is enough lithium for the batteries to replace our national fleet of private vehicles. For the cobalt issue, Tesla is now using Lithium Phosphate batteries which go shorter distances but do not require cobalt.

Back during the 'Dubya' administration, there was talk of switching to hydrogen cars. That may make sense if nuclear power plants are creating huge amounts of energy during off peak times at night.... which can be used to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen technology is inefficient compared to electric vehicles, but that is because Tesla has invested in bringing down costs of batteries.

They don't generate anymore heat than current devices,MrMan.

one glass of water can power 30,000 homes for a year.Isn't that better?

If we all had our own little nuclear generators... which run off of heat and steam engines like most electric power generation systems, then we might have a lot more generators throwing out a lot more heat than we currently have. I am not saying it wouldn't be pretty cool to have that.

I think a valuable piece of information for governments to consider would be to compare individual generators to having centralized power facilities. Of course, the power companies would probably want to centralize it, if they could even exist economically. Every building might have to hire a nuclear tech and electrician if they each had their own nuclear gensets, or maybe vendors could handle set up. But I would imagine centralized facilities could be optimized to produce less heat (if that is even a valid concern) and it might be cheaper to do this on a massive scale. It might be economically feasible for a large plant to use excess production during off peak hours to produce hydrogen for hydrogen cars, or any other valuable output for night production of electricity, while the individual consumer who does not specialize in these areas would not have time to borrow. That would work in favor of centralized production having an advantage over individualized production.

I would imagine batteries and hydrogen cars would probably make more sense than everyone having a nuclear generator in their car. I don't now if we have enough lithium in the world to make the high output batteries, and I suspect new battery technologies to be a hot area if fission becomes __economically__ feasible as a means of producing power.

It may also make sense to use petroleum for automobiles, though there is a lot of political pressure against that idea.

God,you like to shill.Did you even read the article?

[MrMan]

https://naturalnews.com/2022-07-21-cold ... rcity.html

it's too bad actual rogue countries like eritrea,have too low education to replicate this independantly,I think,if they did it it would make the elephant obvious in the room to all nations,and other nations would see that oil and gas are redundant methods of energy consumption.

So the solution to global warming is supposedly to have millions of devices that generates a lot of heat. I wonder if that will heat up the planet more than CO2.

I wonder when this will become economically viable. But will it make sense for every home or car to have it's own nuclear reactor, or will it make more sense for a power plant to make energy from this power source, which one day may become cheap, and then send power through the grid to power houses and cars?

I don't know if there is enough lithium for the batteries to replace our national fleet of private vehicles. For the cobalt issue, Tesla is now using Lithium Phosphate batteries which go shorter distances but do not require cobalt.

Back during the 'Dubya' administration, there was talk of switching to hydrogen cars. That may make sense if nuclear power plants are creating huge amounts of energy during off peak times at night.... which can be used to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen technology is inefficient compared to electric vehicles, but that is because Tesla has invested in bringing down costs of batteries.

They don't generate anymore heat than current devices,MrMan.

one glass of water can power 30,000 homes for a year.Isn't that better?

If we all had our own little nuclear generators... which run off of heat and steam engines like most electric power generation systems, then we might have a lot more generators throwing out a lot more heat than we currently have. I am not saying it wouldn't be pretty cool to have that.

I think a valuable piece of information for governments to consider would be to compare individual generators to having centralized power facilities. Of course, the power companies would probably want to centralize it, if they could even exist economically. Every building might have to hire a nuclear tech and electrician if they each had their own nuclear gensets, or maybe vendors could handle set up. But I would imagine centralized facilities could be optimized to produce less heat (if that is even a valid concern) and it might be cheaper to do this on a massive scale. It might be economically feasible for a large plant to use excess production during off peak hours to produce hydrogen for hydrogen cars, or any other valuable output for night production of electricity, while the individual consumer who does not specialize in these areas would not have time to borrow. That would work in favor of centralized production having an advantage over individualized production.

I would imagine batteries and hydrogen cars would probably make more sense than everyone having a nuclear generator in their car. I don't now if we have enough lithium in the world to make the high output batteries, and I suspect new battery technologies to be a hot area if fission becomes __economically__ feasible as a means of producing power.

It may also make sense to use petroleum for automobiles, though there is a lot of political pressure against that idea.

God,you like to shill.Did you even read the article?

Shill for whom?

I am rather skeptical of the webpage... that they already have fission technology ready for commercial purchases.

[69ixine]

So the solution to global warming is supposedly to have millions of devices that generates a lot of heat. I wonder if that will heat up the planet more than CO2.

I wonder when this will become economically viable. But will it make sense for every home or car to have it's own nuclear reactor, or will it make more sense for a power plant to make energy from this power source, which one day may become cheap, and then send power through the grid to power houses and cars?

I don't know if there is enough lithium for the batteries to replace our national fleet of private vehicles. For the cobalt issue, Tesla is now using Lithium Phosphate batteries which go shorter distances but do not require cobalt.

Back during the 'Dubya' administration, there was talk of switching to hydrogen cars. That may make sense if nuclear power plants are creating huge amounts of energy during off peak times at night.... which can be used to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen technology is inefficient compared to electric vehicles, but that is because Tesla has invested in bringing down costs of batteries.

They don't generate anymore heat than current devices,MrMan.

one glass of water can power 30,000 homes for a year.Isn't that better?

If we all had our own little nuclear generators... which run off of heat and steam engines like most electric power generation systems, then we might have a lot more generators throwing out a lot more heat than we currently have. I am not saying it wouldn't be pretty cool to have that.

I think a valuable piece of information for governments to consider would be to compare individual generators to having centralized power facilities. Of course, the power companies would probably want to centralize it, if they could even exist economically. Every building might have to hire a nuclear tech and electrician if they each had their own nuclear gensets, or maybe vendors could handle set up. But I would imagine centralized facilities could be optimized to produce less heat (if that is even a valid concern) and it might be cheaper to do this on a massive scale. It might be economically feasible for a large plant to use excess production during off peak hours to produce hydrogen for hydrogen cars, or any other valuable output for night production of electricity, while the individual consumer who does not specialize in these areas would not have time to borrow. That would work in favor of centralized production having an advantage over individualized production.

I would imagine batteries and hydrogen cars would probably make more sense than everyone having a nuclear generator in their car. I don't now if we have enough lithium in the world to make the high output batteries, and I suspect new battery technologies to be a hot area if fission becomes __economically__ feasible as a means of producing power.

It may also make sense to use petroleum for automobiles, though there is a lot of political pressure against that idea.

God,you like to shill.Did you even read the article?

Shill for whom?

I am rather skeptical of the webpage... that they already have fission technology ready for commercial purchases.

They do,look at the website of that company on the linked page.

[MrMan]

They don't generate anymore heat than current devices,MrMan.

one glass of water can power 30,000 homes for a year.Isn't that better?

If we all had our own little nuclear generators... which run off of heat and steam engines like most electric power generation systems, then we might have a lot more generators throwing out a lot more heat than we currently have. I am not saying it wouldn't be pretty cool to have that.

I think a valuable piece of information for governments to consider would be to compare individual generators to having centralized power facilities. Of course, the power companies would probably want to centralize it, if they could even exist economically. Every building might have to hire a nuclear tech and electrician if they each had their own nuclear gensets, or maybe vendors could handle set up. But I would imagine centralized facilities could be optimized to produce less heat (if that is even a valid concern) and it might be cheaper to do this on a massive scale. It might be economically feasible for a large plant to use excess production during off peak hours to produce hydrogen for hydrogen cars, or any other valuable output for night production of electricity, while the individual consumer who does not specialize in these areas would not have time to borrow. That would work in favor of centralized production having an advantage over individualized production.

I would imagine batteries and hydrogen cars would probably make more sense than everyone having a nuclear generator in their car. I don't now if we have enough lithium in the world to make the high output batteries, and I suspect new battery technologies to be a hot area if fission becomes __economically__ feasible as a means of producing power.

It may also make sense to use petroleum for automobiles, though there is a lot of political pressure against that idea.

God,you like to shill.Did you even read the article?

Shill for whom?

I am rather skeptical of the webpage... that they already have fission technology ready for commercial purchases.

They do,look at the website of that company on the linked page.

I followed one of the links. I am skeptical of the claim.