Energy Breakthrough Key To Dealing With Economic Problems: Rossi’s Energy Catalzyer Could Be It

If there is any way to solve the huge economic problems faced by people around the world, energy solutions have to be found. We live in a time of increasing energy costs and the prospect of them going higher as they become more scarce. We see all kinds of efforts to find alternatives to the fossil and nuclear fuels we have become dependent on, but while we see incremental progress in energy innovation, no new energy technology has as yet have been comparable in abundance or efficiency to the traditional mainstays.  Those mainstays are becoming more expensive and scarce as physical supplies dwindle and a variety of government regulations make them more costly.

This is what makes the appearance of Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer technology so significant. We are apparently approaching the introduction of an energy source that has the potential to eclipse anything we have yet seen in terms of abundance, economy and efficiency

Andrea Rossi has said that initially his energy costs will be 10 percent of current costs (both thermal and electrical). It would obviously take time for a new technology like the energy catalyzer to become widely implemented, but in time it could become ubiquitous (barring artificial obstacles)  If this turns out to actually be the case the economic impact would be phenomenal. Imagine your heating, electrical and fuel bills cut by 90 per cent. Imagine the impact on businesses if energy overhead costs are cut by 90 per cent (and the cost savings that could be passed on to consumers). Imagine the impacts on local, and national government budgets if their energy budget line were cut by 90 percent. Imagine the cost savings in agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, and other energy intensive industries if they had to pay 90 per cent less for energy to power their operations.

Once this technology has been fully and finally validated (Rossi says this will be in the marketplace — no more public demonstrations until after October) there should be a surge of interest in the E-Cat, and it will be time to start studying the way to adapt to a new economic reality. Certainly there will be plenty of turmoil to deal with as established interests, based on the old energy economy will no doubt struggle to remain profitable and relevant, but the prospects this new technology offers will be so attractive that huge demand throughout the world will make it difficult to stop.

The energy catalyzer could be the most significant invention since the dawning of the industrial revolution — not only because of the immediate benefits, but it could spark a new wave of research leading to scientific discoveries that could eventually eclipse even Rossi’s nuclear discovery.

Unless Rossi and his associates have been lying all along, and faking their demonstrations and data, we are indeed on the verge of an extraordinary development that could provide the world with something that could totally transform today’s dismal economic climate. It should be only a few short months until we find out the truth.

  • Roberto

    I think low cost energy can make real several applications now impossible to approach. Many thing for enviromental problem so as solidify CO2.

  • Pingback: Il catalizzatore di Rossi: possibile chiave per risolvere i problemi economici | il blog di massimo calì()

  • twmemphis

    “Andrea Rossi has said that initially his energy costs will be 10 percent of current costs (both thermal and electrical).”

    How can the energy cost be 10% of todays cost if the E-Cat is producing only 6 times more heat-energy than the electrical input?
    This would be “at it’s best” 1/6th of todays cost. But unfortunately, even this is not realistic, because nobody is heating with pure electricity.

    Electricity is much too expensive to use it for direct generation of heat.
    Today, heat is produced by gas or oil which costs a lot less per kWh than the price for electricity-kWh. This must be pointed out, otherwise the whole calculation is getting wrong.
    The E-Cat requires (expensive) electricity as input and generates (cheaper) heat.

    The technology of heatpumps has become very popular to generate heat for houses and swimming pools. Todays heatpumps have a COP of 5. This means they need 1kWh of electricity to generate 5kWh of heat. This result is very much like the announced COP of 6 of the E-Cat.
    Heatpumps are very cheap, a 5kW model can be purchased far below $1000. This would be just 1/5 of the price for an E-Cat and it will take many many years until the E-Cat would really have a cost-advantage here.

    Surely heatpumpts are a different technology than the E-Cat, but they are also very effective and they do not need to be serviced as often as the E-Cat: An inspection every 2 years is sufficient, while the E-Cat needs service and replacement reactor every 6 months.

    For the purpose of heating the E-Cat seems to have no real benefit compared to heatpumps.

    Generating electricity with the E-Cat still is a bit difficult. Todays methods to transfer heat into electricity do not yet have a good effectivity. A heat-output of “6 times the electricity input” might only be transformable back into a very small amount of electricity-output. Unless there will be technologies that can transfer heat into electricity 1:1, the E-Cat will not be usuable for the production of electricity.

    The E-Cat technology is a good new idea, but there still is a long way to go until we can talk about “cheap energy”.

    • John Dlouhy

      An E-Cat can produce electricity with, realistically, about 40% efficiency. The 1/6th power input, expressed as a percentage, is about 16%, and results in a net electrical power production of 24% of the E-Cat’s heat rating after providing for its own power requirements.

      If an E-Cat produces 3 kW of heat, then it can provide a net of 25% X 3 kW = 0.75 kW of electric power. Over a 6 month period (180days X 24hr/day X 0.75 kW = 3240 kWh) at 10 cents per kilowatt hour it would produce $324 worth of net electricity on a Nickel charge replacement valued at only $100. In addition the almost 10 megawatts of surplus “waste” heat could be used to heat buildings in cold climates, and for hot water supply.

      On the other hand, I think your appraisal of heat pumps is overly optimistic. Their COP is highly dependent on the temperature differential and a value of 5 is rarely seen. Only an inexpensive air to air heat pump could be purchased for under $1000 dollars and would not be able to heat houses in the winter months in northern latitudes. Here we must use “ground source” heat pumps which require several deep wells from which to transfer the heat. The typical cost is $15,000 dollars for an installation and actual figures from the power company show a reduction in power requirements from $1096 to $439 per year for an average sized house. That’s equivalent to an effective COP of 2.5. Considering the large investment and the mechanical complexity, its difficult to say whether or not it is worthwhile. My neighbor just replaced his $5000 compressor which is typical after 15 years of service. That cost should be factored in as well.

      • twmemphis

        One example: You can find the Poolex Jetline swimming-pool heatpump with COP of 5.5 to 6
        I also found pool-heatpumps with 5kW output at $700 and 10kW models at around $1400

        Of course it should also be possible to transfer this heat back to electricity, but the main use will be to produce heat.

        I agree that in cooler areas the COP will drop. I can not say how much, but it will be less. A swimming pool will generally only be heated when it is relatively warm outside as well.
        For heating houses it is not so much air-to-air heatpumps, but more the “earth-heat” heatpumps. I personally have such system in my house since three years. 2 holes were drilled 100m deep into the ground, my COP average is 4 over the whole year. I have a service every 2 years and I get up to 16kW heat-ouput. For the same I would need at least three E-Cats, which all require service four times as often as my system.

        I do not want to say the invention of the E-Cat is not good, but I just want to correct the idea of “saving 90% of energy-costs” or even “free energy”. Compared to todays heating systems (even gas/oil) it does not save 90%, but maybe 10-20% of the energy costs, while the installation and service cost is a lot higher for the E-Cat.

        In reality a heating system is also not running 24 hours, 365 days a year at full power. If it did, the E-Cat might be able to play his joker-cards to win against heatpumps.
        Also please remember that the E-Cat currently requires an almost 1 hour ignition phase which makes it a bit difficult to run it like other heating systems which you can switch on and off quickly.

        I am sure future versions of the E-Cat (or Hyperion) will have a much bigger effectiveness and will also drop in price, maybe even improve the time needed for ignition and require less-often service.


    • Roberto

      Tw, Why do you think input energy to ECAT must be conventional energy to current marketprice and not ECAT output energy?

    • Tim N

      Don’t get too hung up on this 1/6 factor. Rossi seems to be saying the MK1 technology he is involved in is currently set to work at this level.

      Defkalion, on the other hand, who seem to be technically pushing ahead on a semi-detatached track from Rossi, have stated that they work in the 1: 20-30 range, and are also developing a self sustain version, where external power will only be used to warm it up at the start.

      It all seems to be about control for safety reasons – obviously the higher the gain or especially getting to self sustain, is only just short of runanway meltdown. Rossi’s approach seems ultra-cautious, as experience is rapidly gained I feel that the higher gains will be used – and Defkalion already seem to be heading there.

  • f

    The current range of products produces surplus energy from 6 to 30 times more heat than energy consumed during its operation.
    ..which is supposed to be limited due to safety concerns, so there could still be plenty of room.

  • Dan Kane

    You state:

    “Unless Rossi and his associates have been lying all along, and faking their demonstrations and data, we are indeed on the verge of an extraordinary development ….”

    I’m certainly rooting for Rossi, and I hope he’s discovered a Nobel prize wining phenomenon that will save the planet and launch a new era of energy abundance.

    But after watching his awkward demonstrations and weak, incomplete answers to very reasonable questions, I fear eventually his own his own incompetence will expose him. Not as a liar, but as just another deluded fool tilting at windmills. If he has what he claims, it would be trivial to demonstrate and prove while eliminating all the skeptics and without revealing his secret catalyst.

    I really do hope I’m wrong…..and if I am I’ll be the first in line to thank him. And he will deserve billions of $$$$.

  • Roger Barker

    Unfortunately I am now of the mind that this is a big scam. I was very hopeful initially especially with the information available in the early part of the year. However with more detailed information coming out there is no shred of evidence to suggest the E-Cat works as described. All we have are the words of Rossi and Defkalion. Nowhere do we actually see an E-Cat working in anger or proof of Defkalions factories.