Replies

So then the goal is not really to do it with no heat at all,, it’s more to be able to throttle it down to something far less than that of an H-bomb, but still hot enough to use for say ,,steam generation, like a nuke plant?

But not really totally room temperature being the final goal?

Theoretically any reaction that produces a temperature differential could be harnessed as a useful form of energy. It doesn’t really matter what the temperature of the reaction takes place at or even if you are creating cold or heat. Processes could be engineered to harness any energy that was cheap enough and plentiful enough. At this point in time however there just is nothing cheaper and more convenient than burning hydrocarbons for most applications. Other than nuclear and hydroelectric there really are very few other alternative energy sources that even come close.

I don't feel like I really answered your question very well. The way that cold fusion most likely would be harnessed would most likely be nothing like a traditional nuclear power plant.

Scientists have been working for decades on hot fusion experiments because theoretically the fuel which is most commonly some form of hydrogen would be both plentiful and cheap. Unfortunately it is very difficult to create a sustainable hot fusion reaction. If perfected this might be similar in appearance to traditional nuclear power.

The hope for cold fusion is that a reaction could be designed that could be maintained in a very small reactor that would produce a useful amount of energy. We are talking about something that might range from a traditional power plant down to something that might be similar to a laptop battery that would produce power for years instead of store power for a few hours. Unfortunately, after a some false starts no one has come close to achieving this goal so far.