Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

Because it is always 50 years out.

Why is the LENR ignored then?

Because at least regular fusion has significant and universally accepted empirical evidence of it even being fundamentally possible.

LENR has had to have a name change because the primary connotation with cold fusion is a bunch of psuedoscience and bullshit.

Yes, some real scientists have published some results that make continued study worthwhile, but if regular fusion is 50 years off, our indication is that LENR, if it's even possible, is 100.

Oh, you again? It’s ignored because it’s bunk.

Why 100? I see no barrier to adopt the LENR worldwide in a short period of time, when the effect will be well understood and easy to reproduce.

It's ignored, because most labs in the world cannot reproduce it yet, because LENR is not well understood yet. However, LENR is not dismissed completely, see [0].

My own idea is that plasma micro-bubbles are hot enough to cause nuclear fusion somehow.

[0]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/scientists-in-the-u...

If people outside of the LENR community could ever reproduce any of their experiments it would be a good start.

I don't think the hundred or so scientists at a bunch of disparate universities are part of some conspiracy to push quack science, but something is up when there is no theoretical framework that even begins to explain your results, no one outside of your community can reproduce it, and your results are still just "well that's weird" vs. "we have something we can build off to actually produce energy"

When someone outside the LENR community will reproduce Cold Fusion experiment, he will be part of the LENR community immedialtely, so nope.

However, you can look at results produced by Akito Takahashi[0]. Are they convincing enough for you?

[0]: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf...

Because nobody has demonstrated working LENR. You can't build that which has not been discovered. Oil wars are effectively fought over energy. LENR would be a significant strategic, political, and economical advantage, and intentionally suppressing it is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. America, as one example, could stop participating in an expensive war occurring thousands of kilometers away over an ocean, that is being fought for the sole purpose of stockpiling energy reserves.

We know how to make fission reactors, we have many of them operating right now. We could build more this very second.

Have those results been replicated by a peer?

If all you want is fusion instead of energy production then just put a fusor[0] in your garage.

Lab results that show some evidence for trace amounts of fusion reactions do not imply net energy production. E.g. one of the recently announced results needed a powerful xray beamline to get some tiny results, which consumed more energy than the fusion reactions ever released.

This is comparable to the ancient greeks inventing a "steam engine"[1] that does no meaningful work.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

This is the replication of results of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries experiments.

Unlike fission and like thermal pump, this energy can be used to heat buildings, so even if nuclear reaction can produce just 100-200% of additional energy, which is enough for about 30-60% of electricity spent, the device still can perform at 200-300% efficiency when used as a home heater.

In that case it would compete with a heat pump. And unlike that one it can't double as AC.

And that's not exactly baseline power production. Shifting goalposts?