Elon Musk Sees Tesla’s Batteries Providing Energy Storage for all SolarCity Installations within 10 Years

We often discuss the future of home energy production in terms of what LENR could make possible, but it’s likely that it will be some time before home LENR systems become available. Meanwhile an increasing number of homeowners are looking to cut energy costs and increase energy independence by installing rooftop solar panels on their homes.

An interesting development is being reported by the Wall Street Journal which involves Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla motors, and also chairman of SolarCity, one of the leading companies working in the domestic solar energy industry. At a conference in New York on Wednesday, Musk appeared with his cousin, Lyndon Rive, (who is the CEO of SolarCity) where they discussed a future collaboration between Tesla and SolarCity in which some of the batteries produced at Tesla’s gigafactory in Nevada will be used for “grid scale storage”.

Energy storage is seen as a crucial partner to solar and wind energy because of the intermittent nature of these renewable energy sources. If you can cheaply store energy produced by solar cells on your home, it could be a very attractive way to move off the grid.

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Thanks to the economies of scale that will come from Tesla’s gigafactory, within 10 years every solar system that SolarCity sells will come with a battery-storage system, says Mr. Rive, and it will still produce energy cheaper than what is available from the local utility company.

Mr. Musk also noted that in any future in which a country switches fully to electric cars, its electricity consumption will roughly double. That could either mean more utilities, and more transmission lines, or a rollout of solar—exactly the sort that SolarCity hopes for.

Elon Musk has proven to be force to be reckoned with in bringing advanced technology to market in new and visionary ways, and it will be interesting to see how this partnership with SolarCity develops. One wonders, of course, what Elon Musk might do in connection with LENR if it is proven to be revolutionary and viable way to produce energy. Electric cars could be a natural fit if LENR electrical production becomes a reality.

  • Jonnyb

    I wonder if this is where Rossi’s e-cat plant is?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Rossi was up in Massachusetts talking to the Governor when he came to the US. So my bets are either North Carolina or Massachusetts. I think Vegas odds would favor Triangle Park.

  • Jonnyb

    I wonder if this is where Rossi’s e-cat plant is?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Rossi was up in Massachusetts talking to the Governor when he came to the US. So my bets are either North Carolina or Massachusetts. I think Vegas odds would favor Triangle Park.

  • Ophelia Rump

    They will get some good mileage out of the concept, before the well runs dry.
    The expense of storage will not be competitive with LENR on demand production.

    • Fortyniner

      When you’ve invested time and money in a product, I suppose that it is only natural to blow your own trumpet even when you know the technology will be obsolete very soon – probably long before the financial investment is repaid.

      In this case it looks like two doomed species in the energy zoo trying to bail each other out by encouraging a few less-than-savvy investors to jump aboard their hastily constructed life-raft.

      • GreenWin

        You may be too harsh on Elon. Solar has a future if only amongst those suspicious of new-fangled gadgets like E-Cats. And Tesla’s gigafactory is designed to build batteries for cars primarily. Heck, were I to power my mountain chalet with E-Cat, I’d probably put a battery backup unit in. So as not to miss Liverpool F.C.

        • Fortyniner

          I’m sure that battery cars will do very well, and they would be a ‘natural’ for a world in which electricity costs next to nothing. Unfortunately I don’t believe that this will ever be the case. It’s only in an utterly distorted market that solar-fed battery supplies, with all the inefficiencies of solar generation itself, battery storage losses, and 85% efficient inverters for making AC, could ever make any kind of sense when competing with LENR.

          So I suppose that what I’m actually railing against isn’t Musk but the expectation that LENR will be subverted to the profit making interests of the energy cabal supported by its tame politicians.

          • GreenWin

            A reasoned rail you have there. It is hard not to wonder just what the cabal is up to these days. Facing trillion$ in stranded assets, at what point do they switch from opposing LENR to accepting? And do they use the old “buy it and bury it” (NiMh) tactics? The cabal oddly now includes the solar/agw clan. They all fear LENR threatens their grandiose vision of centuries more sheeple control.

            In a sense solar represents the old “generate and transmit” method. Do we want energy scavenged after a 93million mile journey to Earth – or made locally?

          • Fortyniner

            I agree absolutely – there will be some strange bedfellows in the rump of anti-CF interests. We can only hope that it does escape into the wild, and fairly quickly, despite inevitable attempts to prevent this happening.

            Personally I always try to support our local producers wherever possible, but when I switch on an electrical appliance I have precisely zero choice as to where the power is coming from.

        • georgehants

          GreenWin, I am moving to an oil powered heated house, I am seriously looking at 4kw of solar power.
          If the economics work out I will have it fitted immediately.

          • GreenWin

            Sounds just wonderful George. A brief look at your Met office average sunshine chart indicates your is the sunniest place (SW England, S Wales – summer) in the nation. Does the system you contemplate include battery storage?

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, I am completely dumb on this situation, just now starting to get good information.
            I don’t think that Penzance falls below 0,C very often, so as you say may be good place to have solar.
            Good wind to as we are on the coast.

          • Fortyniner

            George, I looked into PVs 2 years ago, and decided in the end to fit water heating panels and a ‘thermal store’ instead, as the projected fuel savings were far greater, and the cost considerably less (admittedly I did get the panels free!).

            Assuming you have no prospect of getting a gas main laid in, the heat pump idea seems pretty good to me, especially given the local climate. Maybe a woodburner as well, to provide a cosy hearth for the winter?

            You would need to fit small thermostatically controlled ducted fans in walls and ceilings to distribute the heat around the house, if the heat pump was the normal air heating type (much simpler and cheaper than installing ‘wet’ central heating, although cheap ones can make a noticeable noise).

          • Fortyniner

            Very few people bother with batteries to store solar power in the UK, as there are still huge subsidies available (‘feed-in tariffs) for sending the surplus to the grid. There is a whole industry here dedicated to persuading people to fit their ‘free’ panels to their roofs, then taking the subsidy for the life of the installation.

            The additional grid power obtained this way is completely unnecessary as it is only available when demand is low (warm, bright days), and the cost is astronomical, but hey, it’s green so who cares what it costs (the consumer is paying, anyway).

          • GreenWin

            Feed in tariffs are great for PV industry no doubt. And another way for the grid to stay in control. Should batteries become cheap enough to store household usage — choice to reduce grid to backup only is plausible.

          • Omega Z

            People like Elon Musk & Rossi are usually overly optimistic on time frames.

            On that note, I also wonder if Musk has allowed for new improved battery tech that will possibly be ready to come to market at about the time he’s planning on starting up production in this new battery plant.
            Batteries with half the size, half the weight, half the cost & a 500 to 1000 mile range & double the number of recharge cycles before needing replaced.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            In the face of the huge efforts in worldwide research it seems more than likely that we will see drastically improved batteries within the next ten years. But that could become a problem for Tesla in the case that another company would own the technology, and were not willing to license it on acceptable terms. At least from Tesla’s direct competitors I would not expect such a generosity.

          • Omega Z

            Andreas Moraitis

            Details, Details…
            Musk does not own the battery tech he aims to build.
            He has formed a partnership with one who does.

            Basically, He is providing the Building & most of the financial arrangements. The partner will provide the manufacturing technology & machines.

          • Broncobet

            Right. Panasonic. Plus hundreds of other companies will be under one roof.

          • One only needs to see what happened to Stanford Ovshinsky’s battery & solar technology.

          • Broncobet

            I used to follow him forty years ago, I assume he’s dead.

          • I’m much more boring .not yet any contact with DGSE

            It tooks me 20 years, Internet bubble from inside, Financial bubble from inside, climate bubble from beside, LENR by accident, to understand that conspiracy theory are sometime mainstream, and that other conspiracy theories are just there to hide the reality.

            UFO are there to protect US citizen mind from criticizing violation of their ethic by their government…

            MH370, MH17, LENR, Climate, the things are simple…

            we simply have difficulties to understand the absurd logic of groupthink…

            MH17… shot down by those who were there with fighters, because not even 10 drunken operator can shot down a civilian plane which is tagged as civilian by IFF transponder… assuming pilote error under low oxygen is more rational. fakes on twitter and audio is pathetic. assuming the only one who don’t have any missile nor any plane is guilty, while neonazi driven party with 10 missiles and 2 fighter are assumed innocent… remind me the MIT fraud… Conspiracy with plastinated corps is just to make the real theory look fantazy.

            MH370… sure hijacked, and shot down above diego garcia… trajectory is logic, and sure if the plane was in the around as witness seen, it was seen by the electronic big ears of diego garcia… behavior to send research far from the logical zone is pathetic. Conspiracy with secret planes kept in DG is just to make the real theory look fantazy.

            hot fusion : a good idea that does not work finally but makes bigger budget, long tenure, big publication index, big business. budget and failure despite known hopeless challenge, while ignoring aneutronic and small solution is pathetic.

            Climate : a good idea that does not work finally but make bigger budget, long tenure, big publication index, big business, big ideology, big religion, big politics. Even Koonin is leaving the boat now http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565 (time for me to consider climate theory if Koonin challenge it ;-> )

            use Occam razor, not consensus.

            my new amateur job make me understand how information travel the community network… some information are protected to spread, and others spread like virus because some intrinsic properties, and by media support…

            see how Blacklight and NASA Zawodny articles spread more than E-cat stories… I’ve seen it…
            see how EmDrive is allowed to spread by journalist, much more than cold fusion.

            see how facts (not theory) on MH17 don’t spread… at least in France.

            groupthink is only one structure of information propagation.

            rumor follow other ways… press works another way (sheep, and ideology bias). CIA is today quite good at legally spreading counter fires to media, helped by mainstream parrots and social puppets.

            today in france I see how politicians, helped by puppet journalists, can spread counter scandal to react to an affair… that is a job.

            no conspiracy, all is public. reality is simplest.

          • Fortyniner

            I’ve been sitting here in my conservatory for the last hour and a half, watching a clear blue morning sky being turned into a hazy grey mess by jets flying in parallel to known flight paths across to Wales, and others (white painted refuelling tankers, no markings – I keep a telescope handy) flying at 90 degrees to this this where there are no flight paths, both leaving trails that persist and spread out across the sky for hours.

            This is in plain sight, but unnoticed by 95% of the sheeple and rationalised away as ‘normal’ by most of the remainder, who are simply unable to conceive that something so huge could be happening without public information or engagement.

            There are thousands of hours of movies online, millions of photos, and hundreds of analyses of rainfall following spraying, that together prove beyond any shadow of doubt that harmful chemicals are being routinely dispensed into the atmosphere for whatever reason or reasons. But if anyone confronts the average citizen with the facts, most just think ‘conspiracy theory’ and dismiss the facts, just as they have been trained to respond.

            In the end, most people can’t handle cognitive dissonance, breaking free of groupthink, or additional stress, and instead simply choose to believe that all is well — leaving the perpetrators free to continue with whatever it is they are attempting to accomplish. So it is for all the ‘big lies’ – AGW, weather wars, Fukushima cover up, false flag events, manufactured wars, planetary financial manipulation, real and imaginary pandemics, and the rest of constructed ‘reality’.

        • Ophelia Rump

          If it ever becomes self looped, A Tesla battery will be a must for your chalet.

          • GreenWin

            A nice variation is for Tesla car owners to plug their vehicle into a V2H system (Vehicle to Home.) This will charge the vehicle and provide household backup (E-Cat control) without a dedicated home battery. Of course if the significant other is off skiing when the Cat goes wild… Which is why I shall keep an old Mr. Fusor in the attic for emergent situations. http://energycatalyzer3.com/files/2011/08/Mr-Fusion.jpg

        • Ophelia Rump

          Look into Geothermal, it is still the best investment. There are systems which use ground-loops buried under lawns, and wells to pump water up and send it back doing heat exchange upon it.

      • Ophelia Rump

        They will make tons off of the enterprise, and do great good for people in the process. The brass section is part of the show, listening to the trumpet is interesting, good news is all too scarce these days.

      • Billy Jackson

        We have to remember that the e-cat is not free energy just yet it still requires energy input for stabilization. plenty of room for solar and battery storage to advance. with the new meta materials and graphene’s supposed effect on battery storage who knows what the future on those fronts will bring.

        at the start i see LENR as a supplemental technology to battery storage. the ecat isnt an on demand device. its an always on device.. the reaction takes hours to get up to speed before it kicks in. as such their are just devices that wont work without some type of storage capacity to hold energy.. cars being one right now

        Its not like we can just take out an engine at the moment and expect it to work right away by putting in a e-cat. lots of redesigning needed.. energy storage for on demand use. safety issues (900 degree steam needs a way to get AWAY from the car in case of an accident otherwise your children may wind up soft boiled from escaping steam….) (looping/reclamation of steam/water for a closed system?)

        LENR and Batteries for the foreseeable future will go hand in hand for many applications that require mobility.

  • Ophelia Rump

    They will get some good mileage out of the concept, before the well runs dry.
    The expense of storage will not be competitive with LENR on demand production.

    The batteries are great and will always be a success. The pairing to Solar will double Solar demand overnight. But LENR will gradually displace most of the Solar Market. Storing electricity involves expenses. They will be able to sell twice the panels to existing customers. Half for day consumption and half for night.

    • When you’ve invested time and money in a product, I suppose that it is only natural to blow your own trumpet even when you know the technology will be obsolete very soon – probably long before the financial investment is repaid.

      In this case it looks like two doomed species in the energy zoo trying to bail each other out by encouraging a few less-than-savvy investors to jump aboard their hastily constructed life-raft.

      • GreenWin

        You may be too harsh on Elon. Solar has a future if only amongst those suspicious of new-fangled gadgets like E-Cats. And Tesla’s gigafactory is designed to build batteries for cars primarily. Heck, were I to power my mountain chalet with E-Cat, I’d probably put a battery backup unit in. So as not to miss Liverpool F.C.

        • I’m sure that battery cars will do very well, and they would be a ‘natural’ for a world in which electricity costs next to nothing. Unfortunately I don’t believe that this will ever be the case. It’s only in an utterly distorted market that solar-fed battery supplies, with all the inefficiencies of solar generation itself, battery storage losses, and 85% efficient inverters for making AC, could ever make any kind of sense when competing with LENR.

          So I suppose that what I’m actually railing against isn’t Musk but the expectation that LENR will be subverted to the profit making interests of the energy cabal supported by its tame politicians.

          • GreenWin

            A reasoned rail you have there. It is hard not to wonder just what the cabal is up to these days. Facing trillion$ in stranded assets, at what point do they switch from opposing LENR to accepting? And do they use the old “buy it and bury it” (NiMh) tactics? The cabal oddly now includes the solar/agw clan. They all fear LENR threatens their grandiose vision of centuries more sheeple control.

            In a sense solar represents the old “generate and transmit” method. Do we want energy scavenged after a 93million mile journey to Earth – or made locally?

          • I agree absolutely – there will be some strange bedfellows in the rump of anti-CF interests. We can only hope that it does escape into the wild, and fairly quickly, despite inevitable attempts to prevent this happening.

            Personally I always try to support our local producers wherever possible, but when I switch on an electrical appliance I have precisely zero choice as to where the power is coming from.

        • georgehants

          GreenWin, I am moving to an oil powered heated house, I am seriously looking at 4kw of solar power.
          If the economics work out I will have it fitted immediately.

          • GreenWin

            Sounds just wonderful George. A brief look at your Met office average sunshine chart indicates your is the sunniest place (SW England, S Wales – summer) in the nation. Does the system you contemplate include battery storage?

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, I am completely dumb on this situation, just now starting to get good information.
            I don’t think that Penzance falls below 0,C very often, so as you say may be good place to have solar.
            Good wind to as we are on the coast.

          • George, I looked into PVs 2 years ago, and decided in the end to fit water heating panels and a ‘thermal store’ instead, as the projected fuel savings were far greater, and the cost considerably less (admittedly I did get the panels free!).

            Assuming you have no prospect of getting a gas main laid in, the heat pump idea seems pretty good to me, especially given the local climate. Maybe a woodburner as well, to provide a cosy hearth for the winter?

            You would need to fit small thermostatically controlled ducted fans in walls and ceilings to distribute the heat around the house, if the heat pump was the normal air heating type (much simpler and cheaper than installing ‘wet’ central heating, although cheap ones can make a noticeable noise).

          • Broncobet

            George,let us know how this goes as we are all interested in different energy devises and how they work in the real world. The solar hot water heater is one low hanging fruit, does it get government subsidy too?

          • Very few people bother with batteries to store solar power in the UK, as there are still huge subsidies available (‘feed-in tariffs’) for sending the surplus to the grid. There is a whole industry here dedicated to persuading people to fit their ‘free’ panels to their roofs, then taking the subsidy for the life of the installation.

            The tiny amount of additional grid power obtained this way is completely unnecessary as it is only available when demand is low (warm, bright days), and the cost is astronomical, but hey, it’s green so who cares what it costs (the consumer is paying, anyway).

          • GreenWin

            Feed in tariffs are great for PV industry no doubt. And another way for the grid to stay in control. Should batteries become cheap enough to store household usage — choice to reduce grid to backup only is plausible.

        • Ophelia Rump

          If it ever becomes self looped, A Tesla battery will be a must for your chalet.

          • GreenWin

            A nice variation is for Tesla car owners to plug their vehicle into a V2H system (Vehicle to Home.) This will charge the vehicle and provide household backup (E-Cat control) without a dedicated home battery. Of course if the significant other is off skiing when the Cat goes wild… Which is why I shall keep an old Mr. Fusor in the attic for emergent situations. http://energycatalyzer3.com/files/2011/08/Mr-Fusion.jpg

        • Ophelia Rump

          Look into Geothermal, it is still the best investment. There are systems which use ground-loops buried under lawns, and wells to pump water up and send it back doing heat exchange upon it.

      • Ophelia Rump

        They will make tons off of the enterprise, and do great good for people in the process. The brass section is part of the show, listening to the trumpet is interesting, good news is all too scarce these days.

      • Billy Jackson

        We have to remember that the e-cat is not free energy just yet it still requires energy input for stabilization. plenty of room for solar and battery storage to advance. with the new meta materials and graphene’s supposed effect on battery storage who knows what the future on those fronts will bring.

        at the start i see LENR as a supplemental technology to battery storage. the ecat isnt an on demand device. its an always on device.. the reaction takes hours to get up to speed before it kicks in. as such their are just devices that wont work without some type of storage capacity to hold energy.. cars being one right now

        Its not like we can just take out an engine at the moment and expect it to work right away by putting in a e-cat. lots of redesigning needed.. energy storage for on demand use. safety issues (900 degree steam needs a way to get AWAY from the car in case of an accident otherwise your children may wind up soft boiled from escaping steam….) (looping/reclamation of steam/water for a closed system?)

        LENR and Batteries for the foreseeable future will go hand in hand for many applications that require mobility.

      • Broncobet

        Yeah all those less than savvy investors who are up thirty to forty times their investment.

  • Daniel Maris

    It will be interesting if the figures do add up like that, as it will be a fundamental shift in energy provision.

    Countries like Germany and Denmark will accelerate their drive to green energy.

    I have always thought the choice is not between LENR and carbon/nuclear but between LENR and green.

    • GreenWin

      Agree Daniel. And choice between solar + storage vs E-Cat or SunCell may resolve around installation and maintenance. “Green” philosophy is fundamentalist – thrift. LENR is a philosophy accepting abundance.

      • Billy Jackson

        unless the e-cat can be self sustaining with the ability to recapture steam to loop back into water for a continuous supply i think that battery storage is going to continue to grow and improve. Solar will remain until the e-cat goes self sustaining.. at that point… if you dont need an energy input to get it started.. then their is no need for solar or the ‘Grid’

  • Frechette

    Imagine every home solar installation as well as every vehicle utilizing lithium ion batteries. Where will all that lithium come from? We’ll be back depending on politically unstable countries for the supply. Thanks but no thanks. LENR full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. It’s the only way.

    • Broncobet

      Lithium is the third element, there’s plenty, the US mine is close to the gigafactory.It can also be found in brines,plus South America has a lot,and it will be recycled.Remember LENR produces heat the batteries give you electricity.

  • Of course I am not an authority on either Solar or Electrical Cars but I would like to throw out some loose ideas:

    * A Cold Fusion device can be thought of as battery, the energy is stored in the Hydrogen and released on demand. At least in traditional old school devices the components are more of less the same.

    * A solar cell could be pointed towards a glow discharge instead of towards the sun, that way a solar panel could be useful in every country of the world 24/7 around the year. The solar cell converts the light coming from “the battery” to electricity and then charges your car – or your home. Excess heat warm your bathwater…

    • GreenWin

      Bob, hydrogen (H2) is considered an energy carrier. In CF, H2/H1 appears to be undergoing a transition to a different atomic state which allows access to the quantum vacuum. The difference is both solar and H2 provide energy in a closed system. CF and variations benefit greatly from accessing an “open” system.

      • I do not fully understand:

        A hydrogen powercell can be thought of as a battery that relies of chemical energy from Hydrogen? Right?

        A cold fusion devices can also be thought of as a battery, but one that relies on reactions more powerful than chemical but also utilizes Hydrogen, right?

        I thought that this talk about “open” and “closed” system are highly theoretical and not necessarily has anything to do with Cold Fusion…

        Please explain as I do fully understand how quantum vacuum relates to Cold Fusion. I thought that had more to do with Zero Point Energy

        Can you please try to explain all this again in different wording?

        • GreenWin

          Bob, at this stage of CF everything is highly theoretical. And there are many theories. I am pointing to a favored theory revolving around quantum vacuum/ZP since it is easy to visualize.

          Different “CF” experiments have revealed different reactions and products. The early deuterium-Pd electrolytic cells, (Pons & Fleischmann) have shown evidence of D-D fusion by finding He4 – a product only seen due to fusion. That is likely fusion due to some kind of heavy electron/muon Coulomb screening (many theories on this.)

          The present Ni+H and variations appear to access a different type of reaction in which the hydrogen loaded in metal lattice is catalyzed to a lower ground state thereby shedding energy in the form of heat. But there is little agreement about where the energy comes from.

          As for CF and quantum vacuum I’ll let Dr. Hal Puthoff, explain how we are surrounded by unmeasurable but very real energy. If classical physics fails to explain the LENR excess energy, this is a prime candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blojNMW-Ias

          • Actually I thought D+D fusion produced Helium 3 unless you have some tritium when you can do D+T fusion producing Helium 4 plus some neutron emission.

            In CF people claim to see some H3 as a very rare byproduct but much of the excess energy comes accompanied by H4.

            Other explanations for H4 production could be f,ex adding a neutron to tritium which then forms quandrum or whatever its called (3 neutrons) which is instable and morphs into Helium4 plus some other stuff.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Fusion could be a side effect, which occurs only under specific conditions – especially, when the intensity of the main reaction(s) exceeds a certain limit.

          • My friend is a great Tesla Enthusiast and he speaks a lot about Tesla and their turbo chargers. According to him people who buys a car will be able to charge them for free in one of these “turbo chargers” which loads the batteries in a blink of an eye.

            I always ask him – yeah but where is the energy going to come from and he always get annoyed and explains “I told you this a thousand times – there will be solar panels on top of the roof of the charging stations”.

            Solar panels are awesome and sure the efficiency is ever increasing in at some places the costs might be similar to that of burning fossil fuel but solar farms are only suitable at certain locations and these stations needs to be closely located to where people use their cars which is not Mohave Desert – thus I often contemplate these other ways of using Solar Panels as in the Demo of BLP where they are directing panels towards glow discharge – I also know that these possibilities have been considered in Russia.

            But honestly – I do not pretend to know more than others – its just that from a logical point of view I can not get the puzzle together supercharging cars from solar cells consider energy infrastructure, the efficiency of solar panels, weather, location, tax, and storage.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            While Tesla’s typical “supercharger” stations have only a grid connection, some stations with solar panels apparently already exist:

            http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

            I’m not sure if they use a backup storage system for the operation at night or when there is bad whether. That would create an additional demand in batteries, which might become increasingly significant over time.

          • Broncobet

            There’s no need for that Tesla makes money, the juice is from the power line.There’s a fellow at U of M who’s made a nuclear battery probably gives power for thirty years.

          • bachcole

            My unicorn brethren whisper in my ear and tell me “Never let clarity of thought get in the way of wishful thinking.” (:->)

          • Broncobet

            Tubo chargers have solar panels to look cool, they get their electricity from the power line.

          • GreenWin

            Bob, this may help re He4 – experiments at Italy’s Frascati ENEA (Dept of Energy) lab by A. De Ninno back in 2000. This report became so politically volatile as to be inexplicably rejected by 41 scientific journals. It is a standing joke with many CF supporters – that compelling evidence of this caliber was so clearly suppressed.

            “The observation of a sizeable transmutation of Deuterium into Helium proves unequivocally that a nuclear transmutation process is the cause of the so called “Cold Fusion”.” http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

          • There is nothing I like doing more a Friday night than reading 10 year old science papers. / Thanks GreenWin

          • GreenWin

            Bob, I do not understand. I thought you wanted more info. If so, read the De Ninno / ENEA paper – maybe Sunday morning?

          • I do, Thank you.

  • MikeP

    Solar is economic where there are massive subsidies, where some costs can be shifted, and where the grid is required to buy excess electricity production (providing $0 storage cost to users). I don’t see how Tesla’s batteries will be competitive against $0 cost in the home market …

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Are “massive subsidies” the cost for clean air?

      • MikeP

        No…pollution is shifted to where the panels are made (generally with little basic pollution controls), not to count transportation … to the extent that pollution is a global rather than regional problem the answer must be no …

  • GreenWin

    A thoughtful approach to introducing a highly disruptive new technology, would be to disguise it as a less disruptive older technology. There are many benefits to this as there is less shock to financial markets, and greater acceptance from government and the general public. This is the role “renewables” now play. Few energy entities doubt solar + storage will rapidly allow consumers to disconnect from the grid. It’s simply old technology at improved efficiency.

    By paving the road to personal energy independence with solar, market and mindset are less reactionary and more embracing. Grant Feller, writing for Alarabiya, is painting just such a picture for the Arab oil producing nations. He goes as far as to predict fossil giants, Exxon, BP, Shell etc. have invested heavily in preparing for this transition… and will join it.

    Feller uses code language to identify the highly disruptive technology: “…fourth generation nuclear reactors which, it is hoped, will produce more hydrogen-based energy.”(1) Journalist’s predictions of personal energy independence are fundamental to preparing the planet for the more disruptive technology still behind the curtain. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/business/2014/09/16/Powering-the-next-energy-revolution.html

    (1) “Fourth generation” nuclear is 15 years old fission-based using uranium fuel, e.g. PBMR, GT-MHR – there is no hydrogen.

    • I too believe that the energy cartels (actually meaning the banks that own the producers and distributors of energy) are preparing to incorporate new energy sources into their profits machine — but on their terms. This can only mean monopolistic control, one way or another. I would certainly not have any expectations that they might play by the rules, as there is little in their existing empire that could compete with LENR or comparable technologies, and without such control they would stand to lose profits and assets measured in the trillions of dollars.

      Threatened with that potential scale of losses, and given their resources, I would think that there would be very little that is not on their table of options. Notwithstanding promises made by Rossi, Darden et al. I’d be very surprised if their project had not already been effectively taken over by some very big money – most probably a corporation that is currently heavily invested in the nuclear sector (GE, Westinghouse, Siemens etc. spring to mind). If that turns out to be the case, there will be only as much disruption as the new owners are prepared to allow, and LENR generated energy will surprisingly turn out to be no less expensive than any other power source – just ‘greener’.

      • GreenWin

        However, with such simple materials as Rossi appears to use, how will PTB prevent the DIY home kit experimenters, etc. from filling back pages of PopSci with E-Cat clone kits. I recall the early days of IBM’s PC, in Southern California a dozen clone plants sprung up in less than 12 months.

        Most of those clones are gone and IT has consolidated and compressed CPUs into hand held wonders. Could this model the E-Cat evolution?

        • I’ve droned on about this endlessly before, but…

          There’s only one way the technology could stay exclusively in restricted (corporate/military) hands and that is if cold fusion, by whatever name, is deemed by ‘the authorities’ to be a potentially dangerous nuclear process, and is therefore placed under the same restrictions that currently control fissile materials.

          For this to happen, politicians in all countries (including China) would need to be persuaded or induced to legislate appropriately, and would subsequently need to be kept on the straight and narrow by whatever means are required. By pretending that it could be used by ‘terrorists’ as a cheap and available weapon, LENR could easily be demonised to the point that it is not viewed by the general public as a wonderful opportunity to be rid of nuclear fission and fossil fuels, but as something to be feared. It’s then a very small step to induce the sheeple to ‘demand’ protection from this new menace.

          The massive and uniform cover-up by the MSM and the world’s politicians of the profound and deadly genetic consequences of the Fukushima disaster persuade me that such a move is possible, practicable (given a large enough slush fund), and will in fact be attempted.

          Even though the materials involved may be relatively harmless, I suspect that they will rapidly become unobtainable in the same way that most precursors of explosives and ‘recreational’ drugs are unobtainable in much of the world, and the police and ‘special services’ would be fully enlisted to deal with anyone who doesn’t take the hint. The massive majority, having been persuaded of the supposed dangers of CF, would be completely happy to see any transgressors treated (as they would be) as terrorists, not as saviours.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I agree, to assume that LENR has been thwarted by a handful of scientists for the last twenty five years is just a little hard for me to believe. And the complete blackout by Major Media who are owned by the most powerful financial players in the world is just too much of a coincidence for me.

          • ” to assume that LENR has been thwarted by a handful of scientists for the last twenty five years is just a little hard for me to believe”

            it is well explained in “Excess Heat” by Beaudette

            http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

            the mecanism is that all was done quickly, based on missing data and ctrust in the theory facing failed experiments. physicis simply assumed that what they did not understand, calorimetry, was done badly and that what they understood, theory, was perfect…

            then the media started to make pressure on dissenters inspired by insults of Lewis, Koonin and others calteh staff…

            all started with calted at Baltimore. the rest is just groupthink by terror.

            those who dissented were insulted and others hunderstood they have to choose between being the victim or the tortionary.

            you huge mistake is to imagine it is vested interest … by big oil, and even by big physics…

            there is clearly some big physics bias, but the worst is simply done by herd effect, terror agains dissenters, with media distributing the fear…

            Beaudette book, at the end is clear on that.

            for bet big oil, it is pure big ego.

            by the way, MH ? all is proven by a tweet and audio… faked audio, and faked tweet… US gave no data. bundestag question led to a “we have no evidence” answer… and you all believe MH17 was shot down as CNN said ?

            not as the evidence show by a fighter with first 30mm canon then air-air missile, probably because the pilot was suffering altitude disease above 7000m because that plane is not pressurized.

            guess why a german financial company propose 30million to anyone giving definitive evidence… because they know the answer and that it will be good for german exports to russia.

            strange that after long battle UNO accepted a probe on MH17 demanded by Russia…
            while there is report of Malaysia victim of pressure to accepte secret on MH17 causes… it seems they refused.

            note that on the other MH lost in indian ocean, the only credible scenario is that it was hijacked by terrorist, professionally, and was shot down over an american base. all other hypothesis are broke, and this one have witnesses and evidences.

            media is the main vector of groupthink… like BBC was caught removing a video with witness of MH17 shot by plane. and on another scientific affair where they were caught manufacturing consensus by preventing access to their media to dissenters… a meeting with vested interest, mostly ideology but much business.

            as Jed explained in that article,

            http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

            the media, the book authors, succeed in manipulating the masses of scientists or people because they have already a strong desire to be manipulated in that direction…

            because it face their theory, or it face their antipathy to a leader…

            after evidences are not important, provided the one you hate is assumed guilty…

            the most funny is to fight groupthink, as we see with LENr and MH17 (and…), is that financial vested interest may be the only motive to fight the general groupthink…

            thanks for bankers and big oil to prevent the lords of morality and the witch-hunters, to be let alone on the battlefield of information.

          • Broncobet

            AlainCo have you eve seen the movie ” A beautiful mind”? You remind me of the lead character. It’s a true story.

          • I’m much more boring .not yet any contact with DGSE

            It tooks me 20 years, Internet bubble from inside, Financial bubble from inside, climate bubble from beside, LENR by accident, to understand that conspiracy theory are sometime mainstream, and that other conspiracy theories are just there to hide the reality.

            UFO are there to protect US citizen mind from criticizing violation of their ethic by their government…

            MH370, MH17, LENR, Climate, the things are simple…

            we simply have difficulties to understand the absurd logic of groupthink…

            MH17… shot down by those who were there with fighters, because not even 10 drunken operator can shot down a civilian plane which is tagged as civilian by IFF transponder… assuming pilote error under low oxygen is more rational. fakes on twitter and audio is pathetic. assuming the only one who don’t have any missile nor any plane is guilty, while neonazi driven party with 10 missiles and 2 fighter are assumed innocent… remind me the MIT fraud… Conspiracy with plastinated corps is just to make the real theory look fantazy.

            MH370… sure hijacked, and shot down above diego garcia… trajectory is logic, and sure if the plane was in the around as witness seen, it was seen by the electronic big ears of diego garcia… behavior to send research far from the logical zone is pathetic. Conspiracy with secret planes kept in DG is just to make the real theory look fantazy.

            hot fusion : a good idea that does not work finally but makes bigger budget, long tenure, big publication index, big business. budget and failure despite known hopeless challenge, while ignoring aneutronic and small solution is pathetic.

            Climate : a good idea that does not work finally but make bigger budget, long tenure, big publication index, big business, big ideology, big religion, big politics. Even Koonin is leaving the boat now http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565 (time for me to consider climate theory if Koonin challenge it ;-> )

            use Occam razor, not consensus.

            my new amateur job make me understand how information travel the community network… some information are protected to spread, and others spread like virus because some intrinsic properties, and by media support…

            see how Blacklight and NASA Zawodny articles spread more than E-cat stories… I’ve seen it…
            see how EmDrive is allowed to spread by journalist, much more than cold fusion.

            see how facts (not theory) on MH17 don’t spread… at least in France.

            groupthink is only one structure of information propagation.

            rumor follow other ways… press works another way (sheep, and ideology bias). CIA is today quite good at legally spreading counter fires to media, helped by mainstream parrots and social puppets.

            today in france I see how politicians, helped by puppet journalists, can spread counter scandal to react to an affair… that is a job.

            no conspiracy, all is public. reality is simplest.

          • I’ve been sitting here in my conservatory for the last couple of hours, watching a clear, deep blue morning sky being turned into a hazy whitish grey overcast by jets flying in parallel to known flight paths across to Wales, and others (white painted refuelling tankers, no markings – I keep a telescope handy) flying very high at 90 degrees to this, where there are no commercial flight lanes. Both groups are leaving thick white trails that persist and spread out across the sky for hours, rapidly obscuring the sun. In fact the haze is now so dense that it is only just possible to make out further trails being continuously sprayed in and above the layer of murk. Interestingly, none of the ‘white plane’ flights appear on real time transponder tracking sites such as http://www.flightradar24.com – meaning that they are almost certainly military planes, or contracted by the military.

            This goes on in plain sight, 2-3 days every week (at least that is the case here in SW England) but unnoticed by 95% of the sheeple and rationalised away as ‘normal’ by most of those who actually notice the phenomenon (especially by those under about 40, who have no memory of skies without persisting aircraft trails, and who don’t know what real condensation trails should look like). The fact is that most people are simply unable to conceive, let alone accept, that something so huge could be happening without overt political permission or media acknowledgement, and therefore almost entirely without public knowledge.

            There are thousands of hours of movies online, millions of photos, and hundreds of analyses of rainfall following spraying, that together prove beyond any shadow of doubt that harmful chemicals (mostly aluminium, strontium and barium nanoparticles and salts, but including some other very strange materials) are being routinely dispensed into the atmosphere for whatever reason or reasons. But if anyone confronts the average citizen with the evidence, most just respond in Pavlovian manner with ‘conspiracy theory’ and immediately disengage, just as they have been trained to do in many subtle ways.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/4546283/Investigative-Report-Into-Chemtrails

            In the end, most people can’t handle cognitive dissonance, breaking free of groupthink, or additional stress, and instead simply choose to believe (by ignoring any evidence to the contrary) that all is well — leaving the perpetrators free to continue with whatever it is they are attempting to accomplish. So it is for all the ‘big lies’ – AGW, the ‘need’ for nuclear power, Fukushima cover up, GMO, false flag events, manufactured wars, planetary financial manipulation, real and imaginary pandemics, and the rest of constructed ‘reality’.

            http://energyfanatics.com/2012/08/08/how-mainstream-media-decieve-you-magic-tricks/

          • Broncobet

            I’m 62 and can remember almost everything since I was two in 1955 during that time there has always been contrails in the sky(I’m from New York). You would have to be a hundred to remember the sky before contrails,you don’t have to have a jet to leave them just altitude to get the right temperature.

          • Broncobet

            A friend said they would find that plane in two years, that’s a pretty good guess. What’s DGSE?

          • GreenWin

            Fortyniner, you may find BlackLight Power’s board an interesting link to major players. For example BLP’s board member James K Sims is Chair of Gen3 Partners – an impressive technology management company whose clients include GE, Siemens, Pratt & Whitney, and Fuel Cell Energy. Here’s the guy who trains GE’s engineers on the TRIZ concept of innovation: http://www.gen3partners.com/about/innovation-leadership/sergei-ikovenko

            Frankly, with these kind of connections and recent funding, BLP may be first in the LENR market. Industrial Heat is up against some of the best and brightest in the West.

          • bachcole

            Yeah, but their demos still suck and they are much farther away from a usable product than Rossi.

          • I have to agree. There is still little sign that the gap between hype and reality has closed significantly, and Mills may well burn his way though the next tranche of investment without significant practical results, just as he’s done before.

          • Broncobet

            Rossi had a competitor who didn’t like him and told the nuclear regulator that Rossi had dangerous nuclear materials, they met with Rossi and let him go so they are not worried about any radiation.BTW See the guy from U of M with nuclear battery? Runs forever without charging.

          • I take your point about Rossi’s encounter, but this may only reflect a certain degree of unawareness on the part of vested interests at the time. The nuclear battery and any similar devices are covered by legislation relating to fissile materials, and are therefore already entirely in the corporate province – as CF is likely to be in due course.

          • Broncobet

            Things that can be used as weapons are things that have energy in them, if LENR is completely safe it’s because it doesn’t work. If it does work, well then of course it can be used as a weapon, that doesn’t mean its bad or even very dangerous, lots of every day items can be turned into very dangerous things with very little effort. A half a cup of gasoline will explode with the force of a stick of dynamite if it has enough O2 and ignition.If the vested interests got a hold of CF they would promote it to profit by it like anyone would.If an oil company finds gas they sell that also.People do what’s in their interest,an oil company would make a lot of money off CF.

      • psi2u2

        I hope you are wrong, but I see the logic of what you are saying.

    • Broncobet

      Fourth generation nuclear is the cleanest way to go high temp H2 production,will be years before it arrives.Whether it’s pebble bed or not.

  • Frank Acland

    In other Musk news:

    “Elon Musk is not letting investors have it their way, when asked about his third venture, SpaceX, going public, Musk claims he has repeatedly called off plans to go public, due to his end goal plan of establishing a martian city.

    “Like something straight out of a Ray Bradbury work, Musk believes that in the near future, once space flight becomes similar to trains or planes, people will be able to come and go from Mars, the same way they come and go from the United States and other countries.”

    http://news.filehippo.com/2014/09/elon-musk-wont-make-spacex-public-wants-colonise-mars%E2%80%8F/

    • GreenWin

      Elon is not just a visionary, Elon would like to return to his ancestral home. 🙂

    • psi2u2

      LENR may be the magic dust to make this happen

  • Bernie777

    I have been following Musk for several years, his first
    Tesla car is an engineering marvel, especially when you understand they built
    this production car from scratch. It bothers
    me a lot that he has not embraced LENR, he has apparently looked at it and decided solar
    and battery storage is the way to go, or he decided there is room for
    both. The new battery factory is going
    to be larger than the largest Boeing factory.
    This guy really knows how to scale up, we need someone like him running
    LENR, I am not sure IH and the biggie behind them are up to the task or have
    the motivation. There is one thing for sure unlike Musk they like to work in secret.

    • Billy Jackson

      LENR is still an unproven technology wrapped in plenty of conspiracy. as such its not something a company can logically make a business plan on.. its a complete unknown. Solar on the other hand is a known technology still growing slowly with improvements. We have no clue what restrictions or regulations LENR will face for public use. until then its a wait and see game.

      I expect that if LENR gains acceptance and is as abundant as being predicted then we will see “adjustments” in future plans of many companies such as Elon Musk’s.

      • Omega Z

        Yes, We can easily assume many power players are aware of LENR & Rossi, yet say nothing. And they won’t until solid targets are met Such as the 3rd party test & a working plant with decent results.
        Only after these targets are met will they start talking about it.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I have been following Musk for several years, his first
    Tesla car is an engineering marvel, especially when you understand they built
    this production car from scratch. It bothers
    me a lot that he has not embraced LENR, he has apparently looked at it and decided solar
    and battery storage is the way to go, or he decided there is room for
    both. The new battery factory is going
    to be larger than the largest Boeing factory.
    This guy really knows how to scale up, we need someone like him running
    LENR, I am not sure IH and the biggie behind them are up to the task or have
    the motivation. There is one thing for sure unlike Musk they like to work in secret.

    • Billy Jackson

      LENR is still an unproven technology wrapped in plenty of conspiracy. as such its not something a company can logically make a business plan on.. its a complete unknown. Solar on the other hand is a known technology still growing slowly with improvements. We have no clue what restrictions or regulations LENR will face for public use. until then its a wait and see game.

      I expect that if LENR gains acceptance and is as abundant as being predicted then we will see “adjustments” in future plans of many companies such as Elon Musk’s.

      • Omega Z

        Yes, We can easily assume many power players are aware of LENR & Rossi, yet say nothing. And they won’t until solid targets are met Such as the 3rd party test & a working plant with decent results.
        Only after these targets are met will they start talking about it.

      • Broncobet

        If you gave Musk a working ecat he would have a nice car made in a month that would never need refueling.

    • Broncobet

      Musk is great no doubt he knows which techs will be important.

  • Guru

    It is typical behaviour. When some investor have success, they are thinking they are invincible. It is psychical algorithm.
    Elon Musk will bankrupt with his battery megamanufacture sooner then he finish this or shortly after.
    Elon Musk is not inventor, he is investor. Like million others.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Please get on you-tube and listen to his interviews. Have you seen his rocket that takes off and lands to enable cheaper earth orbit?

      • Guru

        Musk invented rocket ?

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          What?

        • Broncobet

          The one he flies yes.

    • Broncobet

      Funny. To start Space_X he designed the engine from scratch and has outcompeted the entire world in rocket engines, the US, Russia ,and Europe soon his rockets will return to their launch pads ready for reuse cutting the price in a third. Not an inventor. He got all his billions by inventing and he’s not done yet. If there are more like him in SA send them to the US!

    • Broncobet

      BTW A rocket is on the pad now but they have bad weather.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I found this (unverified) quote from Elon Musk in an internet forum:

    “I think fusion will happen… and when I say fusion I mean Hot Fusion”.

    http://revolution-green.com/fuel-cell-vehicles-bullst-elon-musk/

    If the citation is genuine, it documents either that he doesn’t expect much from CF/LENR, or – perhaps more likely – he tried to downplay it, as he recently did with fuel cell technology.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I agree, I like Rossi’s approach much better, “there is room for everyone”.

  • Guru

    Musk dreaming about Mars …… meanwhile Goldman Sachs warns: Tesla Will Need To Raise At Least Another $6 Billion

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-19/goldman-warns-tesla-will-need-raise-least-another-6-billion

    • Bernie777

      Ha, Goldman Sachs works for the oil, gas and coal trillionaires.

      • Omega Z

        Goldman Sachs works for profit like everyone else.
        They will be more then happy to see LENR come on board.
        100’s of Billion$ even Trillion$ over decades in financing new power plants & all that entails…

        • they will just give advice to their client to buy oil field, while selling them.

          • Bernie777

            Right, and now they are bad mouthing Musk/Tesla, guess what they are doing?

          • Omega Z

            I think what you mean is if he would get it to market so that we can heat a cup of water. I’ll add to that. So we can heat 10 cups for the cost of 1, Because there is no doubt it gets hot enough to heat water.

        • Bernie777

          Goldman Sachs works for those who pay them and make them the most money, and that is not the LENR “industry”, if you believe their propaganda you are very naive.

    • Daniel Maris

      What’s that cost per annum in interest? About $240million.

      Space X alone is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, much of which will go directly into Elon Musk’s pockets.

      Musk is that rare being: a big dreamer whose capacity for dreaming is matched by a wonderful pragmatism and business sense.

  • Guru

    Musk dreaming about Mars …… meanwhile Goldman Sachs warns: Tesla Will Need To Raise At Least Another $6 Billion

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-19/goldman-warns-tesla-will-need-raise-least-another-6-billion

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Ha, Goldman Sachs works for the oil, gas and coal trillionaires.

      • Omega Z

        Goldman Sachs works for profit like everyone else.
        They will be more then happy to see LENR come on board.
        100’s of Billion$ even Trillion$ over decades in financing new power plants & all that entails…

        • they will just give advice to their client to buy oil field, while selling them.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, and now they are bad mouthing Musk/Tesla, guess what they are doing?

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Goldman Sachs works for those who pay them and make them the most money, and that is not the LENR “industry”, if you believe their propaganda you are very naive.

  • bfast

    I find this article most interesting. You said, “SolarCity Installations within 10 Years” and you said, “but it’s likely that it will be some time before home LENR systems become available.”

    If Rossi really has a magawatt ecat that is easy to manufacture, you don’t think he’ll be substantively providing electrical power in 10 years? I think that portable energy forms, vehicles, will take longer than grid power, but once LENR is obvious there will be a gold rush to get it implemented. I expect to be able to buy an LENR car from Tesla within 10 years.

    • Frank Acland

      My guess of ‘some time’ before LENR home electric LENR systems are on the market is based on what Rossi has said about the difficulty of getting product safety certification for the home e-cats. He says that certification will depend largely on the long-term safety data of industrial E-Cat Plants.

      I am very optimistic about LENR as an energy source, but I see there are technical and legal issues that have to be dealt with, and as with many cutting-edge technological developments, it take time to deal with them.

      In this case, I don’t know how long that time is, but I would think longer than the most optimistic ones among us hope for.

      I hope I am wrong. I would love to see this technology somehow get fast-tracked, and I think it deserves to — but we have seen in the E-Cat World, things don’t always move as fast as we would like.

      • Broncobet

        Yup.

    • Omega Z

      It will take several decades to replace our current power plants in the U.S.
      Whether using Gas burners or E-cat reactors, A power plant is a power plant. Labor intensive, expensive & time consuming to build.

  • georgehants

    I am just moving into a house that has oil heating in the UK that is relatively expensive.
    Do any of our US friends have any advice regarding heat pumps etc.

    • BroKeeper

      George, heat pumps lose their efficiency quickly under 0C. However, as a dual supplemental heat source, oil can kick in around -3C. We have a
      high efficient heat pump with oil and experienced a savings of ~ $100.00 per winter
      month, especially with high oil costs.
      Overall it has paid for itself after 8-10 years. IMO, I think, It is also more efficient than
      most singular air conditioners. Hope this helps.

      • georgehants

        BroKeeper, many thanks, all this heating, solar etc. is not easy to work out, that’s how they like to keep it, profit, profit, profit.
        Roll on Cold Fusion, but that will still be highjacked for profit I expect.

        • BroKeeper

          I suspect it so as well, but then we have the China factor. Interesting future.

    • Omega Z

      Geothermal Heat pumps. Can Average COP>3 for heating/cooling year round regardless of outside temps.

      Issue’s: Expensive to install.
      Can be problematic if improperly sized & improperly installed.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Geothermal heat pumps are great; I would like to have one. But as far as I know they need to be combined with a floor heating. With normal radiators they won’t work effectively, due to the required higher temperatures.

  • georgehants

    I am just moving into a house that has oil heating in the UK that is relatively expensive.
    Do any of our US friends have any advice regarding heat pumps etc.

    • Brokeeper

      George, heat pumps lose their efficiency quickly under 0C. However, as a dual supplemental heat source, oil can kick in around -3C. We have a
      high efficient heat pump with oil and experienced a savings of ~ $100.00 per winter
      month, especially with high oil costs.
      Overall it has paid for itself after 8-10 years. IMO, I think, It is also more efficient than
      most singular air conditioners. Hope this helps.

      • georgehants

        BroKeeper, many thanks, all this heating, solar etc. is not easy to work out, that’s how they like to keep it, profit, profit, profit.
        Roll on Cold Fusion, but that will still be highjacked for profit I expect.

        • Brokeeper

          I suspect it so as well, but then we have the China factor. Interesting future.

      • Jouni Tuomela

        Here in Finland I have water circulating central heating, before me oil-based. The boiler also has electrical heating-resistors. The boiler has a spiral for warm water. The previous owner of this house installed an air-to air heat-pump, also capable of cooling inside air.
        I installed a wood-pellet burner to the place of oil-burner. That I put aside as a backup burner.

        Depending on the outside conditions, I use different methods to feel warm inside the house.

        Until some -5 Celsius I use the heat-pump. I burn those wood-pellets from some 5 Celsius. During the absence of the central-heating, I use those resistors to warm water.

        Should put some black pipe on my roof to get summertime warm water. While waiting TIPR2 to blow our minds.

    • Omega Z

      Geothermal Heat pumps. Can Average COP>3 for heating/cooling year round regardless of outside temps.

      Issue’s: Expensive to install.
      Can be problematic if improperly sized & improperly installed.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Geothermal heat pumps are great; I would like to have one. But as far as I know they need to be combined with a floor heating. With normal radiators they won’t work effectively, due to the required higher temperatures.

  • ecatworld

    My guess of ‘some time’ before LENR home electric LENR systems are on the market is based on what Rossi has said about the difficulty of getting product safety certification for the home e-cats. He says that certification will depend largely on the long-term safety data of industrial E-Cat Plants.

    I am very optimistic about LENR as an energy source, but I see there are technical and legal issues that have to be dealt with, and as with many cutting-edge technological developments, it take time to deal with them.

    In this case, I don’t know how long that time is, but I would think longer than the most optimistic ones among us hope for.

    I hope I am wrong. I would love to see this technology somehow get fast-tracked, and I think it deserves to — but we have seen in the E-Cat World, things don’t always move as fast as we would like.

  • georgehants

    Why would anybody wish to talk about Musk. he is just a person who has learned how to manipulate a capitalist society to his own advantage while millions of others suffer.
    He will say anything that leads to more profit for himself.
    Only when he genuinely does something of benefit to all of society is he worth mentioning.
    Cold Fusion is the subject, not those who manipulate to gain from a situation.
    No wonder so many people spend their lives watching soap operas etc.

    • Ophelia Rump

      He is almost independently making it possible to replace gasoline vehicles with electric. No one is going to successfully steer industrial society away from the cliff on a strictly charitable basis.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, you are talking about society the way that it is, not how it would be if people where free of capitalism, then many caring people would (I think) willingly devote their lives to inventing and Researching things to help and progress society as a whole and still be fairly rewarded.
        An example may be Mr. Rossi et al.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Georgehants, that will not be in our lifetimes. I think the young will live to see it. We must live in the present while we hope for the future.

        • bachcole

          I was thinking that it would be more likely that in a world without capitalism people would be starving to death, sort of like North Korea. And who would be voluntarily picking up the garbage? “Inventing and Researching things” does not encourage people to take difficult, dirty, hot, and otherwise unpleasant jobs.

          You will see an ideal world, perhaps soon, but not while your body is functioning. When it ceases to function, then you will see your ideals fulfilled.

          • Sandy

            “The Hutterites are a communal people, living on hundreds of scattered bruderhöfe or colonies throughout the prairies of northwestern North America. On average, fifteen families live and work on the typical Hutterite colony, where they farm, raise livestock and produce manufactured goods for sustenance. The communal lifestyle of the Hutterites finds its roots in the biblical teachings of Christ and the Apostles”. http://www.hutterites.org

            Hutterites do not starve to death. Their version of communism, which might be described as “tribal communism”, works very well. The Hutterites are the most successful people on Earth in the sense that their population is the fastest growing. The average Hutterite couple has 10 children, and those children almost always reach adulthood and reproduce.

            Communism can work very well on a small scale. The Hutterites are living proof of that. Send LENR-powered Hutterites to Mars and they will cover that dead rock with life in just a few thousand years.

          • US_Citizen71

            What you are describing is less a function of ideology and more a function of necessity. A small collective needs all members working at close to 100% effectiveness in order to survive. If Johnny isn’t fed, clothed and housed he won’t be able to carry out his duties effectively, if he doesn’t carry out his duties the whole collective/commune suffers. This forces sharing for the common good. If those collectives were allowed to grow to say 1500 families specialization would cause the members to need to work less and would trigger the competitiveness we see throughout the world today in large groups. The history of the growth of civilizations throughout world has shown this to happen time after time after time.

          • bachcole

            Typical egghead, exteriorized interpretation. These small groups are able to do effective and compassionate communism because their religions keeps their egos and desires in check.

          • bachcole

            Sandy, you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion: “Communism can work very well on a small scale. The Hutterites are living proof of that.” Groups like the Hutterites, and numerous other groups like Amish and Mennonites, work not because they are small and communistic. They work because they have their lust, greed, anger, pride, etc. in check with their religious devotion. Families, which also tend to be communistic, also work when they are loving, since platonic love checks desires. On the other hand, there were many small, communistic groups in the USA in the late 1960’s that did not last, thanks to lust, greed, anger, pride, etc. Everyone want to hold hands and sing kum ba ya, and no one want to do the dishes or take out the garbage.

            The structure of society will only go just so far in improving the human condition, like separation of powers, police forces, equality before the law, etc. After that, any more improvement requires people learning in their heart of hearts that the real enemy of happiness is craving, ego, anger, etc.

          • Omega Z

            “there were many small, communistic groups in the USA in the late 1960’s”
            Today, Most of them are called Wall Streeters.

          • Broncobet

            They work because we chose to protect them. Put them in Syria let’s see small communism help them there.

          • Broncobet

            They are lucky the rest of us protect them, we also have sheep.

        • GreenWin

          George, Elon is a better soul than you credit him. He has made ALL Tesla patents ( a large portfolio) available at no cost to anyone who cares to use them. This is a good demonstration of leadership in the “open information” movement and, illustrates how business can be socially responsible and profitable.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          “fairly rewarded” will never replace the unlimited profit motive.

        • US_Citizen71

          Unless you have a virus, hiding about somewhere, that will remove competitiveness from human DNA your utopia is likely a long ways off. One of the causes of the failure of Russian communism was the capitalistic black market. Wanting more or something better than your neighbor is pretty much intrinsic to human beings.

          • Brokeeper

            Karl Marx theory would have worked if all had heart surgery. I’m convinced if the haves and have-nots were switched at birth the results would nearly be the same.

          • bachcole

            I have a problem with a couple of things that you said:

            (1) Some cultures simply aren’t competitive. Rural Mexican culture comes to mind.

            (2) I don’t give a rat’s ass what my neighbor has, as long as it isn’t Ebola.

            But, I agree with the drift of what you said. Until we remove the lust, greed, anger, pride, etc. in the human equation, there will be little to no change. And the only person who can do that is someone who is voluntarily doing it within themselves, and, trust me, it ain’t easy. You need a lot of Help.

          • US_Citizen71

            Even rural Mexican culture has competitiveness. You have heard of machismo correct? Machismo is the epitome of competitiveness, ie who is the manliest man.

          • hempenearth

            We have twins, one of each. At about eleven months old, the girl was doing all the movements/excersizes that happen before walking. We thought she would be first to walk. The boy wasn’t doing any of those movements and so it was to our surprise that one day he pulled himself up and started walking around the living room. He had been walking for a week or two when the girl left her mothers arms in the hallway and walked about 4 metres then stopped and looked at my son and I. I smiled but my son walked straight up to her and pushed her over. Since then I have believed that competition is part of human nature.

          • Broncobet

            Some cultures are not competitive…. yes, they are all extinct, didn’t you understand Lord Darwin??(obviously this isn’t to you US).

        • psi2u2

          Elon Musk is not high on my list of “bad” capitalists. There are plenty of them who are, starting with the war profiteers, the oil industry oligarchs, Halliburton, Blackwater, the Prison Industrial Complex, and Montsanto – to me he seems like largely a decent human being with a strong entrepreneurial vision. I have come to believe that the salvation of the world, if it exists, lies in the future development of a more cooperative society through the growth of the non-profit sectors of the economy within a capitalistic framework. This, incidentally, is already happening in the US economy. This may tame the beast without creating the monster that communism in practice has shown itself to be. Trying to legislate the profit motive out of existence doesn’t work.

          • bachcole

            Yeah, but if we all hold hands and dance in a circle and sing kum ba ya and wish with all of our might, maybe that will work.

          • Broncobet

            Please remember that “non profit” is just a name it’s an IRS classification and they often make gigantic salaries, in some instances it really can be called a scam. Even if they do good works it’s not out of the goodness of their hart it’s a way to make a multimillion dollar salary and not have to answer to the stockholders.

        • Broncobet

          When Musk started Space_X he told the investors that profit would not be the main goal, so they have known this from the start and he’s made money from the start. The reason for it is the tale of Noah’s Ark. We are on that ark now and it’s very dangerous; a gamma ray nova or an asteroid and all the life that we know of could be blown out like a candle. Musk wants to personally walk on Mars and we need enough people up there so that they can be fruitful and multiply. Once we start spreading through the galaxy one event like disease, or a zombie attack , will not snuff out this precious life.I think that is a noble cause and I’m pleased that the old stories from the good book played a part in his vision.

      • etburg

        I agree with Ophelia. I have been involved for some time now in the struggle to keep fracking and the environmental harm it causes out of NY state. I’ve come to believe that, unfortunately, meaningful change only takes place once the economics tip in the direction of a better solution. You can shame politicians and society up to a point but money usually speaks loudest. Musk is succeeding because he designed a better car, and a better spaceship from the ground up. Along the way he has been a very sharp businessman. He is unique in that his underlying motives are good. Otherwise he could have simply sat back on his Paypal money. Rossi has said, basically, the same thing. Unfortunately, the market usually speaks loudest.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Ophelia Rump……,.Have you declared yourself yet, are you a believer in man made climate change?

        • bachcole

          I occasionally look up at the clouds and try to imagine the clouds to be moving in a direction different from what they usually move. Our clouds usually come from the west by northwest. If the clouds are moving slow enough, I find it very easy for me to “see” the clouds as coming from the direction that I imagine them to be coming from. This demonstrates the power of suggestion.

          To be absolutely honest (and I do practice absolutely honesty, deliberately by divine order), I can’t be positive whether AGW is true or false. First, I am not sure that the Earth is actually warming or not. And second, I can’t tell if people are causing it or if they are causing it a little bit or what. Both phenomena are WAY TOO gradual for me; they both fall well within the range of what my imagination and suggestibility would tell me and which sources I read. I admit that if I start to read a pro-AGW article, I stop reading it. And I bet that honest pro-AGW people will admit that they do the same thing, only reversed. We have become so polarized that we are all looking at different data from different sources. I see the same thing in politics. I see the same thing in cults. I see the same thing in health. I just can’t read through an article that is cholesterol-phobic.

          Please don’t get the idea that I am about to switch positions. And don’t get the idea that I will mock the opposition any less (well, perhaps a little less).

          • Broncobet

            Yes , it is very easy for me to see AGW, I live in the West and the climate scientists predicted that more carbon would mean more droughts in the interior of large land masses. Hoover dam was built to withstand ten thousand year droughts but it cannot withstand this one. We are supposed to get four and a quarter inch of rain a year I’ve been here twenty years and we got that much once. Droughts are terrible and I’m not even a farmer.By the way ,they predicted this all back in 1970 and they have been right, we had all that time to build nuclear plants and haven’t .We’re a sinful generation.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I suggest you take a test drive of Tesla Model S, when he gets the price down in the 30 thousands the electric revolution will start

  • bachcole

    Elon is wrong. LENR will change everything.

  • builditnow

    E-Cat revolution could be faster than you think.
    Wright brothers example.
    Only 6 years after the Wright Brothers first demonstrated in public, a french pilot entertained crowds in a Bleriot XI aircraft in South Eastern Australia. Think how much faster the E-Cat revolution can be once the realization hits the public.

    The Write Brothers first flew in 1903, keep it secret until 1908 demonstration flights in France and the US. There were many detractors who apologized “Leading French aviation promoter Ernest Archdeacon wrote, “For a long
    time, the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluff… They
    are today hallowed in France, and I feel an intense pleasure…to make
    amends.”[93]” “In January 1909 Orville and Katharine joined him in France, and for a
    time they were the three most famous people in the world, sought after
    by royalty, the rich, reporters and the public. The kings of England,
    Spain and Italy came to see Wilbur fly.” (wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#European_skepticism

    Only 6 years later in 1914, a french aerobatic pilot traveled around Australia doing aerobatic stunts to amazed crowds.
    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2181824/celebration-of-a-trailblazer/

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/french-pilot-maurice-guillaux-made-aviation-history-with-first-seaplane-flight-over-sydney/story-fngr8h22-1226909247666?nk=95e8e02f3c0c6d31bae043a394fe4f3f

    Things can happen a lot faster in 2014 than in 1908.
    Many could be surprised with the speed of E-Cat implementation.

    • Bernie777

      Are “massive subsidies” the cost for clean air?

    • Omega Z

      Power plants take years to plan & build & billions of dollar$.
      All these constraints plus limited numbers of people with the skills & expertize to build them.

      Just because you have a very efficient heat reactor that replaces the Gas burners will not change all the other dynamics. A power plant is still a power plant.

      Note that there is are existing orders for about a 1000 power plants. There is a need for far more then that. 2x or 3x as many. No one adds to the list because it already exceeds 10 years in waiting.

  • builditnow

    E-Cat revolution could be faster than you think.
    Wright brothers example.
    Only 6 years after the Wright Brothers first demonstrated in public, a french pilot entertained crowds in a Bleriot XI aircraft in South Eastern Australia. Think how much faster the E-Cat revolution can be once the realization hits the public.

    The Write Brothers first flew in 1903, keep it secret until 1908 demonstration flights in France and the US. There were many detractors who apologized “Leading French aviation promoter Ernest Archdeacon wrote, “For a long
    time, the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluff… They
    are today hallowed in France, and I feel an intense pleasure…to make
    amends.”[93]” “In January 1909 Orville and Katharine joined him in France, and for a
    time they were the three most famous people in the world, sought after
    by royalty, the rich, reporters and the public. The kings of England,
    Spain and Italy came to see Wilbur fly.” (wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#European_skepticism

    Only 6 years later in 1914, a french aerobatic pilot traveled around Australia doing aerobatic stunts to amazed crowds.
    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2181824/celebration-of-a-trailblazer/

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/french-pilot-maurice-guillaux-made-aviation-history-with-first-seaplane-flight-over-sydney/story-fngr8h22-1226909247666?nk=95e8e02f3c0c6d31bae043a394fe4f3f

    Things can happen a lot faster in 2014 than in 1908.
    Many could be surprised with the speed of E-Cat implementation.

    • Omega Z

      Power plants take years to plan & build & billions of dollar$.
      All these constraints plus limited numbers of people with the skills & expertize to build them.

      Just because you have a very efficient heat reactor that replaces the Gas burners will not change all the other dynamics. A power plant is still a power plant.

      Note that there is are existing orders for about a 1000 power plants. There is a need for far more then that. 2x or 3x as many. No one adds to the list because it already exceeds 10 years in waiting.

  • Bernie777

    For you old guys it is like the fight between Betamax and VHS formats. Betamax had a better product but VHS beat them to the punch with product availability and marketing. If Rossi and IH do not get on the availability and marketing bandwagon soon it might be too late.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Bandwagon? Someone else has a product, a factory, multiple validations reports and a demonstration plant, scheduled for this year?

      • Bernie777

        Sorry I was not clear, I was talking solar/battery vs LENR. Solar will have a 25% panel in the next 6 months. This will decrease the installation cost, which is the major cost of home installation. Some are projecting the new Tesla factory will decrease the battery cost by one third, not counting new tech battery advances.

        • psi2u2

          This is all wonderful and will no doubt help to further diversify the world’s energy portfolio in the right direction, but unless we are wildly overestimating the potential of LENR, I don’t see solar as having any near term potential to displace it. For one thing LENR can be deployed 24-7, which has very significant competitive advantage. Even in the best climes, solar can only produce during daylight hours. And in Seattle – where I grew up – ???

          • Rene

            In Seattle (and in Kirkland) you find PV systems atop homes. The efficiency of the panels is higher than in sunny California because they operate at lower temperatures, and so the 65% solar isolation in Seattle WA vs. San Jose CA generates almost the same amount of power, throughout the year except in winter where Seattle gets seriously socked in rain and sometimes snow. Even in central California, where I have my off-grid home, I see a small shortfall December through February. A generator charges up the batteries once a couple of days or so during that time.
            Yes, LENR is great… someday. I do not expect home LENR for at least 5 years at best.

          • Omega Z

            You Optimist…

          • Rene

            Fact based observations.

          • Omega Z

            Murphy’s law.

          • Rene

            Troll.

          • Broncobet

            If the CF reactors were free it doesn’t mean the price to the public will be low, in any case profit will be maximized.

          • psi2u2

            Hi Rene,

            I see you are rather new to this discussion and full of “fact based observations.” I appreciate your clarification of the potential of various solar hot water applications to capture low grade heat even on an overcast day, but that does not change the underlying calculus against solar compared to the potential of LENR. Like many who have followed this story closely, I am confident that LENR is going to hit the market much sooner than five years, although you may be correct that home versions will take up to 5 years – and that’s assuming that there is not a manufactured scare against the technology.

          • Rene

            Not in the least new to the discussion. I was one of the first to be placed on the “send me a home ecat” list, still waiting, and the wait will likely 10 years in total. I haven’t said much because all this is speculation. It is headed to the ‘real’ category with the demonstration plant but even that is still cloaked in secrecy. Once the TIP report goes public, and access to a working plant happens, then hurray!
            BTW, I was not referring to solar hot water collection at all. I am referring to photovoltaic collection aka electricity. When I said my home is off-grid it means that PV panels are generating electricity that powers the home.
            Will LENR hit the market sooner than 5 years, probably, for industrial applications. But this discussion was solar/battery for home usage vs. home LENR, and that one has a low chance of seeing daylight for many years to come. It has been discussed before here (many times) that the regulatory and safety issues for the availability of LENR based home products will create a very long delay, even longer if a manufactured scare campaign happens.

          • psi2u2

            Great! Hadn’t seen your posts before. We have a minor difference in perspective. Pleased to meet you.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes, I believe they have a $73,000 model.

            The fact that they have a $113,000 model that will with their
            new revolutionary battery plant now cost $100,000, or they have a model that
            was $73,000 that will now cost $70,000 is STILL a MOOT point. The simple fact
            is these are high priced luxury cars in a NICHE market.

            The BASIC point and knowledge I have imparted here is not
            changed by their lower cost product. The simple matter is some 30% cost reduction in their batteries DOES NOT in any signification way change the cost structure of their cars.

            And worse is those in “many” areas with HIGH priced electricity,
            those without suitable homes (or parking stations), and those in colder areas
            cannot practical take advantage of such vehicles. And toss in the very high
            cost of these cars, then indeed such a choice is really only for those that
            hardly care about the cost of their vehicles they purchase.

            As noted while the above is solid reasoning, at the end
            of the day I still think the Telsa is a great product as along as one realizes
            its target market and limited usability for average vehicle owners..

          • Heath
      • US_Citizen71

        Even rural Mexican culture has competitiveness. You have heard of machismo correct? Machismo is the epitome of competitiveness, ie who is the manliest man.

        • hempenearth

          We have twins, one of each. At about eleven months old, the girl was doing all the movements/excersizes that happen before walking. We thought she would be first to walk. The boy wasn’t doing any of those movements and so it was to our surprise that one day he pulled himself up and started walking around the living room. He had been walking for a week or two when the girl left her mothers arms in the hallway and walked about 4 metres then stopped and looked at my son and I. I smiled but my son walked straight up to her and pushed her over. Since then I have believed that competition is part of human nature.

          • Bernie777

            I answered this question when, I think it was georgehants, asked the same question, if you missed it I will try to find it for you.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    For you old guys it is like the fight between Betamax and VHS formats. Betamax had a better product but VHS beat them to the punch with product availability and marketing. If Rossi and IH do not get on the availability and marketing bandwagon soon it might be too late.

    • Jouni Tuomela

      The world will still be saved, because the phenomenon is the most important thing.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Bandwagon? Someone else has a product, a factory, multiple validations reports and a demonstration plant, scheduled for this year?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Sorry I was not clear, I was talking solar/battery vs LENR. Solar will have a 25% panel in the next 6 months. This will decrease the installation cost, which is the major cost of home installation. Some are projecting the new Tesla factory will decrease the battery cost by one third, not counting new tech battery advances.

        • psi2u2

          This is all wonderful and will no doubt help to further diversify the world’s energy portfolio in the right direction, but unless we are wildly overestimating the potential of LENR, I don’t see solar as having any near term potential to displace it. For one thing LENR can be deployed 24-7, which has very significant competitive advantage. Even in the best climes, solar can only produce during daylight hours. And in Seattle – where I grew up – ???

          • Rene

            In Seattle (and in Kirkland) you find PV systems atop homes. The efficiency of the panels is higher than in sunny California because they operate at lower temperatures, and so the 65% solar isolation in Seattle WA vs. San Jose CA generates almost the same amount of power, throughout the year except in winter where Seattle gets seriously socked in rain and sometimes snow. Even in central California, where I have my off-grid home, I see a small shortfall December through February. A generator charges up the batteries once a couple of days or so during that time.
            Yes, LENR is great… someday. I do not expect home LENR for at least 5 years at best.

          • Omega Z

            You Optimist…

          • Rene

            Fact based observations.

          • Omega Z

            Murphy’s law.

          • psi2u2

            Hi Rene,

            I see you are rather new to this discussion and full of “fact based observations.” I appreciate your clarification of the potential of various solar hot water applications to capture low grade heat even on an overcast day, but that does not change the underlying calculus against solar compared to the potential of LENR. Like many who have followed this story closely, I am confident that LENR is going to hit the market much sooner than five years, although you may be correct that home versions will take up to 5 years – and that’s assuming that there is not a manufactured scare against the technology.

          • Rene

            Not in the least new to the discussion. I was one of the first to be placed on the “send me a home ecat” list, still waiting, and the wait will likely 10 years in total. I haven’t said much because all this is speculation. It is headed to the ‘real’ category with the demonstration plant but even that is still cloaked in secrecy. Once the TIP report goes public, and access to a working plant happens, then hurray!
            BTW, I was not referring to solar hot water collection at all. I am referring to photovoltaic collection aka electricity. When I said my home is off-grid it means that PV panels are generating electricity that powers the home.
            Will LENR hit the market sooner than 5 years, probably, for industrial applications. But this discussion was solar/battery for home usage vs. home LENR, and that one has a low chance of seeing daylight for many years to come. It has been discussed before here (many times) that the regulatory and safety issues for the availability of LENR based home products will create a very long delay, even longer if a manufactured scare campaign happens.

          • psi2u2

            Great! Hadn’t seen your posts before. We have a minor difference in perspective. Pleased to meet you.

        • Broncobet

          They already have solar panels that get forty per cent or more, the question is at what price? The most efficient are multi junction cells used for satellites.

        • Broncobet

          I get my solar info from the “Energy Collective” and “Greentech Media” It’s all complicated and interesting.

      • Broncobet

        They did announce a battery that will drive your car for thirty years without charging that was from the U of Missouri, peer reviewed, and published in Nature.

      • Broncobet

        AR said nothing about having a factory.

  • Bernie777

    Please get on you-tube and listen to his interviews. Have you seen his rocket that takes off and lands to enable cheaper earth orbit?

    • georgehants

      Thanks bkrharold, I notice how quickly everybody on page jumped to answer my simple question.
      So until all power comes from solar, wind, Cold Fusion etc. it would seem a bit daft to use electric cars?

      • GreenWin

        George, if you do not get caught up in the terror of AGW, using an Electric Vehicle is a convenience in home “fueling.” That is, you can recharge your car at home, rather than paying BP at the petrol pump. While your electric energy comes from fossil/fission – (18p/kWh – UK average) it is quite a bit less costly than petrol (4.91£/gallon.) Thus, you will not save the world from climate change, but you will likely save yourself some cash.

        Looks like the favorite EV in Britain is the Nissan Leaf: http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2014/08/08/nissan-leaf-still-ev-king-in-the-uk-as-sales-surpass-2013s-result/

        Ask your Cornwall Nissan dealer to give you firm cost/savings numbers for the Leaf – electric vehicle.

        • georgehants

          GreenWin, I think you are not taking into account the corruption of a capitalist society.
          I can remember when in the UK, diesel was half the price of petrol until it became popular, now it is more expensive.
          The rich and powerful are going to tax Cold Fusion like everything else just to keep themselves rich and powerful and the lower plebs busy working to pay their taxes and bills.
          Why are solar panels in the UK not being fitted universally free of charge by the unemployed to bring oil imports to nearly zero.
          These people are being paid anyway, not to work.
          The reason is that it would stop the obscene profits from other polluting and expensive sources.

          • GreenWin

            Yes, on the prospect of a CF tax you and Peter agree. The difference between CF and fossil is volume of resources. Fossil is widely believed a diminishing, finite resource. CF, from what we are learning is plausibly using an IN-finite resource to create energy.

            Taxing CF will be a little like taxing the air we breath. If the sheeple allow themselves to be bamboozled this way – they deserve what they get. IMO. 🙂

          • Fortyniner

            That seems a little harsh, GW. At one time or another, there have been some very large public protests about fuel taxation here in the UK (where we currently pay around £7/$12 per gallon due to taxation policy). One or two planned tax ‘hikes’ have been temporarily cancelled as a result, but the overall effect of such protests on fuel taxation has been next to zero.

            No party here promises to reform the massive 70% tax burden on fuel, so it doesn’t matter who is elected, and short of taking up arms (which we were long ago deprived of) there is nothing much left anyone can do, short of selling their petrol/diesel cars and buying a ridiculously expensive EV in protest (or a bicycle).

          • GreenWin

            Right, I see your point. However, the taxing authority in UK assumes petrol is finite and can therefor invoke a “diminishing resource” argument. CF will scupper that, hopefully. On the other hand, the Nissan Leaf EV averages £22,490 (medium kit added) which IS $10k more than US, but not ridiculous I think. Personally, having driven an EV briefly, I loved to drive past gas stations, knowing I never had to pull in there to keep driving.

          • GreenWin

            Roger, they are the same unit, i.e. the British Pound Sterling. So, assume 5£ per US gallon would be $8.17. The electric would be $0.29/kWh. In the USA this translates to a per annum savings of about $1250.00 for the Nissan Leaf EV. According to owner records: http://drivingelectric.blogspot.com/2014/01/five-months-in-our-2013-nissan-leaf-and.html

    • Bernie777

      Right, all these experts are wrong and you are right.

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexVI_FINAL.pdf

      • GreenWin

        It’s a matter of requirements. What many LENR supporters see is grant seeking climate scientists parroting the “consensus” required to obtain funding. These same scientists disbelieve LENR evidence – also required to obtain funding. “Consensus” for AGW, is same as “consensus” against LENR.

        This is the result of politically biased, half-a$$ed simulation code.

        • my mind is disturbed since Steeve Koonin have wrote

          http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

          since he exactly state what skeptic, reasonable climate-skeptics like Judith Curry, were saying since climategate…

          It is time to support climate consensus theory… the man whi killed Cold Fusion in caltech cannot be right…
          or he took the lesson before dying, to feel lighter in front of St Michael?

          anyway, climate theory is right, IPCC is it’s proxy on earth, and LENR will solve it!

          • GreenWin

            Koonin is corrupt, ignorant or both. Though his climate science is better than most – he is still the “scientist” whose ego and ignorance caused the demise of P&F’s good works. History will see him for the charlatan he is. Yes, he is trying to salvage his reputation before St Peter? rightly kicks him out.

        • Bernie777

          GreenWin……We will just have to agree to disagree on climate change, can we agree that using LENR instead of fossil fuel will be positive for the world?

      • Fortyniner

        Yes.

        • Bernie777

          Nonsense!

      • Broncobet

        No,the climate scientists are right but why should you care? If the steps taken to fix the climate not only don’t cost you a penny,but they give you money then you should be for it. I agree most liberals like Al Gore are terrible, and they hurt the climate the most because of their opposition to the best method of reducing CO2 ; advanced nuclear. Plus the rich pollute more than those with less.

  • Sandy

    “The Hutterites are a communal people, living on hundreds of scattered bruderhöfe or colonies throughout the prairies of northwestern North America. On average, fifteen families live and work on the typical Hutterite colony, where they farm, raise livestock and produce manufactured goods for sustenance. The communal lifestyle of the Hutterites finds its roots in the biblical teachings of Christ and the Apostles”. http://www.hutterites.org

    Hutterites do not starve to death. Their version of communism, which might be described as “tribal communism”, works very well. The Hutterites are the most successful people on Earth in the sense that their population is the fastest growing. The average Hutterite couple has 10 children, and those children almost always reach adulthood and reproduce.

    Communism can work very well on a small scale. The Hutterites are living proof of that. Send LENR-powered Hutterites to Mars and they will cover that dead rock with life in just a few thousand years.

    • US_Citizen71

      What you are describing is less a function of ideology and more a function of necessity. A small collective needs all members working at close to 100% effectiveness in order to survive. If Johnny isn’t fed, clothed and housed he won’t be able to carry out his duties effectively, if he doesn’t carry out his duties the whole collective/commune suffers. This forces sharing for the common good. If those collectives were allowed to grow to say 1500 families specialization would cause the members to need to work less and would trigger the competitiveness we see throughout the world today in large groups. The history of the growth of civilizations throughout world has shown this to happen time after time after time.

    • Bernie777

      Just look at the list of the number of scientists that approved the climate report, you are saying all of these women/men are corrupt, nonsense. As laymen, do you agree it is best to mitigate the threat, rather than taking the chance of you being wrong and passing a huge, much more difficult to solve problem in 50-100 years to our grandchildren?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The basic problem with electric cars is really not so much
    the battery technology. And assuming that the new battery plant can cut costs
    by 30% (1/3 as claimed).

    So on a $120,000 Telsa, we have a $12,000 battery pack.

    If we reduce the cast of the battery pack by 1/3, then
    the battery pack now costs about 8500.

    That simply means your $120,000 telsa now with this new revolution
    battery plant will cost $116,400. Hardly a game changing revolution in the
    marketplace.

    The “main” problem with electric cars is the source of
    charging power. If you charge from a standard 110 wall socket, then for EVERY
    HOUR of charging, you get 3 miles of driving. That means in 8 hours of charging
    you have a distance of 24 miles. The fact that the batteries can go 300 miles
    does not change nor help this 3 miles per hour of charging issue. And such a per
    mile rate of charging does not include heating or air conditioning.

    If you use west cost power rates of say 18 cents kwH,
    then your per hour charging rate (1200 watts) is 21.6 per hour x 8 hours =
    $1.72 to go 24 miles. Or $3.45 to go 48 miles. Not a whole lot of difference
    then say any high mileage car today (they can hit 50 miles per gallon quite easy).

    As noted in cold weather, or using air conditioning then such mileage numbers per
    hour drops rather dramatic. So really the cost of a gallon of gas to go 50
    miles, or the cost of electricy are not that far apart in many areas of the
    country. And in places like Claifornia with their over priced “green” electric rates to “discourage” consuming, then peak electric rates jump to 80 and even 90 cents per kwH. At 80, then the
    cost to go those 48 miles is MORE then using gasoline! At 80 cetns per kwH then
    it will cost you $15.36 to go 48 miles at California peak use rates – and this assumes
    no heating or air conditioning is besing used in that car! A gas car can easy exceed such numbers. But then again, we talking about California where cost of things apparently does not matter anymore!

    So while this big battery plant can cut the cost of your $100,000
    Telsa by about $3500, I can’t say that such a price drop in a $100,000 car, or
    even their rumored $40,000 car will make or break the issue of how practical such
    cars are.

    So we drop the price of the $40,000 model by $3000 – is that
    really going to change the world?

    And if you live in multiple person dwellings such as a hi
    rise etc., then the parkade or outside parking stalls do not have such charging
    capacity available.
    Wealthy folks with a house, and a spare $100,000 for a luxury
    symbol can afford such cars, but for mass adopting, we simply don’t have the
    grid in place. And worse we don’t have increasing electric production available
    in most major cities. A home own does have options to install higher amp and special charging stations at home, but that’s not a practical choice for most people.

    If you are in the outback, or with a homestead and want solar power? Again then fine, but the solar power formula and how absolute useless such power is for wide scale electric production is a pipe dream, and such cost numbers don’t make any sense at all.

    Regards,
    Albert k

    • Thanks for a very well reasoned critique. It seems pretty clear that this technology is not yet ready for a mass market.

      • Omega Z

        I’ve seen statements to the effect that “Price competitive tends to mean it only costs twice what you’re paying now.”

        Their meaning of price competitive does not fit my meaning.

        • Broncobet

          That’s funny, I guess it could mean that.

    • GreenWin

      “A home own does have options to install higher amp and special charging
      stations at home, but that’s not a practical choice for most people.”

      Albert, 90% of North American homes are wired for 220VAC 40-60A – to power electric stoves and clothes dryers. EU standard is 230VAC 32-50A. A home owner can run an additional 220V circuit to a garage for about $250.00 electrician fee.

      You are correct re electric rates in Cali (New York, CT) EIA retail average is 18-20 cents/kWh. Which makes the advent of $.01/kWh residential or district electric (LENR) extremely attractive. Many apartment buildings with underground parking are now installing 220V charging circuits – and commercial charge stations e.g. in shopping malls are arriving daily.

      Still, Tesla’s EV is expensive. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt (hybrid) retail after tax breaks around $25k. EV automakers are in a good position to take advantage of LENR lower electric rates even at half present cost. The “Green” carbon concept is utterly corrupted by climate claims to save polar bears and ice caps. Yet another confirmation of outdated simulation bias.

      • bkrharold

        It sounds as if you doubt the findings of 97% of climate scientists. This is not about polar bears or ice caps, it is about the future of our species.

        • Corpse

          Climate scientists were caught lying. Climate predictions have been wrong for nearly 20 years. Climate scientists are changing opinion. The climate is changing on other planets in the solar system. There are powerful special interests who profit from global warming narritive. Look to the sun for the driving force of our climate. Science funded by those with an agenda creates psudoscience.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Here is a list of of the climate scientists who approved the last climate report, are you saying they all have an agenda and we should disregard their findings?

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexVI_FINAL.pdf

          • GreenWin

            It’s a matter of requirements. What many LENR supporters see is grant seeking climate scientists parroting the “consensus” required to obtain funding. These same scientists disbelieve LENR evidence – also required to obtain funding. “Consensus” for AGW, is same as “consensus” against LENR.

            This is the result of politically biased, half-a$$ed simulation code.

          • my mind is disturbed since Steeve Koonin have wrote

            http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

            since he exactly state what skeptic, reasonable climate-skeptics like Judith Curry, were saying since climategate…

            It is time for me to support climate consensus theory… the man who killed Cold Fusion in caltech cannot be right…
            or he took the lesson before dying, to feel lighter in front of St Michael?

            anyway, climate theory is right, IPCC is it’s proxy on earth, and LENR will solve it!

            (joke)

          • GreenWin

            Koonin is corrupt, ignorant or both. Though his climate science is better than most – he is still the “scientist” whose ego and ignorance caused the demise of P&F’s good works. History will see him for the charlatan he is. Yes, he is trying to salvage his reputation before St Peter? rightly kicks him out.

          • bachcole

            Very interesting parallel. Of course the same scientists who support AGW would also deny cold fusion. Otherwise they would be working from home for free (sort of an unwilling practitioner of georgehantism), not that anyone is going to ask them about their stance on both topics.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            GreenWin……We will just have to agree to disagree on climate change, can we agree that using LENR instead of fossil fuel will be positive for the world?

          • bachcole

            You naughty boy!!! You wrote your comment originally thusly: “Right, all these experts are wrong and you are right.” But you changed it because it would have smacked too much of consensus science.

            A far higher percentage of nuclear physicists will tell us that cold fusion is impossible than scientists, “climate” scientists, meteorologists, etc will tell us that AGW is true.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            bachcole……You are getting away with a lot of mocking. You are wrong as usual, I changed my post because I did not want it to sound like a personal attack, unlike some recent posts.

          • Yes.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Nonsense!

          • bachcole

            Bernie777, why is consensus science about AGW nonsense but it is not nonsense about LENR?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I answered this question when, I think it was georgehants, asked the same question, if you missed it I will try to find it for you.

          • people, consensus can have good and bad position for bad or (rarely) good reasons.

            See Steeve koonin who buried cold fusion, and is abandoning AGW consensus recently. in both case it seems that even if he values consensus, he is demanding quite strong evidence…

            for LENR he simply refused chemistry evidence, observing bad physics evidences and bad theory.

            for AGW after tolerating lack of evidence for decades he finally consider it is too much.

            what you can consider, but this prove nothings else the absence of proofs, are the violation of scientific method.

            climategate, like Caltec/MIT/Harwell article in Nature/Science and Oriani, Caltech critics or Deninno rejection, show clear evidence of pathological peer review, where bad article are passing review because they are produced by influential authors and following the consensus, and where good article or critics are rejected.

            you also see with hockey stick, tricky graphics, and MIT corrections clear tolerance to fraud when it is mainstream.

            you can see with BBCgate, or generic bias against cold fusion, the way media organize a blocking of dangerous non consensual science, while they tolerate bad p*rn science every day in their news.

            so you know those consensus are void?

            not all consensus are void!

            not all bad consensus are wrong…

            you simply know nothing.

            since it is very hard to analyse sincerely evidences you can even be convinced that there is good evidence which are in fact voodoo science…

            or see that some evidences are not convincing while they are solid…

            most people who say LENR evidence are broke , even the very few who read them, are sincere…

            about AGW I have my opinion.

            I know LENR solve the problem, so it is useless to discuss.

            I know there is strong polarization (which helped the debate to be visible), pathetic bad arguments by fans of both sides… everybody with a brain can see that pro-statism and anti-statism are fighting on that question with the dream of some to tax the air, while other want to sell auction on it.

            When I see only the serious discussion I see much more convergence, and still many divergence.

            the worst difference is not the science it self, but two approach:

            – one is the approach about uncertainty, and Judith Curry ste the debate well… the power of model, the null hypothesis, unknown unknown

            – the other is about the answer tro the problem, whether possibilites->no regret solution against prediction->action… prevention or mitigation…

            the good point is that the question is not important as it is solved.

            the bad point is that all the epistemology and policy question stay open.

          • bachcole

            They are all heavily influenced to believe in AGW because they would be denied funding if they did not believe in AGW. Just EXACTLY the same way that they would be denied funding if they believed in cold fusion.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Nonsense, they are not denied funding or get funding based on their opinion about climate change, you remind me of the Chairman of the Republican led House SCIENCE Committee, “we won’t have any sea level changes because ice melting in water does not increase its volume.”

          • bachcole

            It is NOT nonsense. It happens all of the time. Halton Arp, an astronomer important enough for a catalogue to be named after, had to go to work in Europe because he disbelieved in the Big Bang and had evidence to support his position. Why do you think that cold fusion is so unpopular; because anyone who openly supports it can forget about getting a paycheck. Are you a skeptopath about the fear of unemployment to influence people.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Just look at the list of the number of scientists that approved the climate report, you are saying all of these women/men are corrupt, nonsense. As laymen, do you agree it is best to mitigate the threat, rather than taking the chance of you being wrong and passing a huge, much more difficult to solve problem in 50-100 years to our grandchildren?

          • bachcole

            First, the list was biased. Second, I didn’t say that they were all corrupt. Those that believed the solar theory or some other theory did not get hired. You still have not explained why you believe that a higher percentage of physicists could be wrong about LENR, but you somehow can’t believe that all of those “climate” scientists (a lower percentage) must necessarily be right.

          • Broncobet

            Bachcole you’re intelligent, give up, he’s right. Use your energy to fight other battles .

          • Broncobet

            It’s the reverse.

          • Broncobet

            Well he’s party right that ice in the water melting doesn’t raise the water much but you are right Bernie, because melted sea ice means dark water that absorbs more heat, and cubic miles of land ice on places like Greenland melt each year and change is accelerating .

          • Broncobet

            Right ,those with a different view get MORE funding. You’d be a millionaire if you were a climate scientist willing to deny AGW and work for a right wing foundation. Which just shows how right the scientists are, they sacrifice money to tell the truth, believe me I’m on the right wing side of a lot of disputes but this is very simple science and I stay on the side of the truth.

          • Broncobet

            No,the climate scientists are right but why should you care? If the steps taken to fix the climate not only don’t cost you a penny,but they give you money then you should be for it. I agree most liberals like Al Gore are terrible, and they hurt the climate the most because of their opposition to the best method of reducing CO2 ; advanced nuclear. Plus the rich pollute more than those with less.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Nice follow up.

        We can let others battle out the SILLY carbon scam and tax
        system that the IPCC/UN wants. If they can tax CO2 on a global scale, they
        stand to gain control of BILLIONS of dollars by a non elected government body –
        and all for no benefit to man except the UN achieving a world scale and goal of
        socialist wealth re-distribution. I’ll let others battle this stupid global warming
        issue, but anyone with a decent IQ can see this is a scam. We not had any
        global warming for 17+ years and in the same time frame we output record
        amounts of CO2 (more then the previous 100 years). A great site to learn about
        the global warming issue is here:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com

        Anyone spending a few days at above one quickly learns
        what a joke is that man’s CO2 output is some huge climate problem.

        Back to the issue at hand:

        As I stated, home owners do have options for increasing
        charging ability, but then again as I pointed out in places like California
        they are ACTIVELY discouraging use of electricity. With peak rates around 90
        cents kwH, then FEW will be able to afford electric cars let alone electric costs
        that are MUCH HIGHER then burning gas at $3.50 per gallon. (your equal gas rate is about $7 to $15 per gallon).

        California seems hell bent on not producing its own electricity and thus they import coal fired electricity from surrounding states. They then pat themselves on the back as to how they have few if any coal plants! The result is VERY high electricity rates, and rates that make electric cars impractical. And your car is now running on coal!

        I felt it was important for readers to have some “basic”
        idea of the range per mile of charging. I mean we can all “grasp”
        that cars in the 15-20 mpg range for a city are not great, but 30+ mpg in a
        city means your car is agreeably fuel efficient. So my post should get the “bolt”
        started in allowing folks to compare gas vs electricity. Most people are quite shocked to hear that for every hour of charging you get 3 miles of travel (and that
        does NOT include air condition or heating).

        And yes, of course you can “ramp” up charging
        rates by installing higher amp stations at home. However ONE STILL should have a “sense” of the comparing to gasoline.

        And it only just over HALF the population lives in single homes
        (about 60%). Now toss in cold climates, now toss in areas with exorbitantly HIGH
        electric costs? The resulting % of the population that can benefit from
        electric cars is indeed SLIM.

        The same goes for all those people go ape bananas over
        some new battery plant and calling such a plant the second coming. Dropping an $110,000 car by about $3000 is not an industrial revolution. In fact dropping the
        proposed $40,000 model by 3 grand not that big of a deal either.

        We have to FIRST fix soaring electricity rates occurring everywhere before sensible adoption of electric cars can occur. And we are talking about
        the relative warm climates. Colder climates in North America (including Canada)
        will have to wait even longer until EV’s are practical.

        And while the Telsa is full of government pork belling,
        the car is a great product and is full of great ideas and innovation. Telsa has
        CLEARLY shown automakers the way forward by not introducing some silly green political correct car that Gilligan from the Island would be embarrassed to be seen in!

        The Telsa is a real beauty of a knockout. Anyone with
        money, taste, style and a good appreciation for engineering will certainly
        desire such a car. I do like the product.

        In other words the Telsa appeals to those with money and
        taste – they are competing with the likes of BMW, Mercedes etc., not you basic economy box.

        Telsa is new to manufacturing, and thus they continue to
        have teething problems. It took Hyundai about 15+ years to get a handle on
        quality. Telsa likely will have a shorter learning curve and hopefully they
        resolve recent quality issues. You CAN NOT LEARN to manufacture something like a car in a few years. So Telsa like any new manufacture had to deal with faulty bolts and basic manufacturing quality issues that most automakers solved MANY years ago.
        So there is a learning curve required when building such products. I
        certainly hope that such growing pains and quality issues will be solved in
        less then the typical time of about 10 years.

        And really, at the end of the day, if/when LENR takes
        off, then we free up carbon based fuels for automotive and transportation. Over
        time as LENR takes off, then research will cause higher COP’s. So we use LENR to create hydrogen or simply plug-in replace coal pants and thus reduce electricity to the point that EV’s become a better choice then oil based cars.

        Or perhaps we place a small high performance LENR reactor
        right in the car. Then when you get home you plug your car in to POWER YOUR
        HOME! – not the other way around! Why waste that LENR power plant in your car during the night!! And why own two LENR power generators – just use the one in your car to heat and power your home! In fact this choice likely would exist for those that cannot afford to replace their furnace and car at the same time!

        Regards,
        Albert k

        • Broncobet

          Actually some conservative Republicans have an idea for a carbon tax that makes very good business sense(of course! They are Republicans). It works past your borders so it tracks imports and exports so you can’t let the Chinese build it unless they pay the tax. Almost every thing should work on a business basis, being nice and clean, pays.

    • Broncobet

      They have much less expensive Teslas.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Yes, I believe they have a $73,000 model.

        The fact that they have a $113,000 model that will with their
        new revolutionary battery plant now cost $100,000, or they have a model that
        was $73,000 that will now cost $70,000 is STILL a MOOT point. The simple fact
        is these are high priced luxury cars in a NICHE market.

        The BASIC point and knowledge I have imparted here is not
        changed by their lower cost product. The simple matter is some 30% cost reduction in their batteries DOES NOT in any signification way change the cost structure of their cars.

        And worse is those in “many” areas with HIGH priced electricity,
        those without suitable homes (or parking stations), and those in colder areas
        cannot practical take advantage of such vehicles. And toss in the very high
        cost of these cars, then indeed such a choice is really only for those that
        hardly care about the cost of their vehicles they purchase.

        As noted while the above is solid reasoning, at the end
        of the day I still think the Telsa is a great product as along as one realizes
        its target market and limited usability for average vehicle owners..

    • Broncobet

      You are way off,as detailed below.Use your common sense ,who would pay good money for that?? No one, they charge much faster.

    • Broncobet

      And guess what? The problem is the high cost of the batteries but also their weight and range.

  • Bernie777

    What?

  • Private Citizen

    University of Missouri (MU) researchers have developed a prototype of an efficient nuclear-energy-powered* battery that does not require recharging and could be a reliable energy source in automobiles and space vehicles.

    “Betavoltaics [a battery technology that generates electrical power from beta-particle radiation] has been studied as an energy source since the 1950s,” said Jae W. Kwon, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and nuclear engineering in the College of Engineering at MU.

    However, the existing solid-state designs are limited by the radiation damage to semiconductors and the subsequent performance degradation, he said.

    Kwon’s solution is a water-based battery.

    MORE: http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-long-lasting-water-based-nuclear-energy-powered-battery

  • Private Citizen

    University of Missouri (MU) researchers have developed a prototype of an efficient nuclear-energy-powered* battery that does not require recharging and could be a reliable energy source in automobiles and space vehicles.

    “Betavoltaics [a battery technology that generates electrical power from beta-particle radiation] has been studied as an energy source since the 1950s,” said Jae W. Kwon, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and nuclear engineering in the College of Engineering at MU.

    However, the existing solid-state designs are limited by the radiation damage to semiconductors and the subsequent performance degradation, he said.

    Kwon’s solution is a water-based battery.

    MORE: http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-long-lasting-water-based-nuclear-energy-powered-battery

    • Broncobet

      I think you could drive your car for twenty years ,without charging, on that battery, but I don’t think it could be safe using Strontium-90 ,of course now that he’s published and peer reviewed in Nature other scientists can help improve it so we have all the power we need in easy to use electricity.

  • Fortyniner

    Thanks for a very well reasoned critique. It seems pretty clear that this technology is not yet ready for a mass market.

    • Omega Z

      I’ve seen statements to the effect that “Price competitive tends to mean it only costs twice what you’re paying now.”

      Their meaning of price competitive does not fit my meaning.

      • Bernie777

        bachcole: To answer your question: Your comparison of climate change scientists and scientists
        that do not accept or do not know about LENR is what I call Fox News logic. There is no comparison, like comparing apples and pickles. Lets take 1000 scientists, 5% have done the LENR experiments and are getting excess energy. 95% of the 1000 scientists have not done the
        experiment and are waiting on peer reviewed confirmation. Climate change: 95% of the 1000 scientists have done extensive research for two decades that says man made climate change is real, and has been reported in 100’s of peer reviewed articles.

        Here is a hilarious clip:
        You can go to 2:90 of the clip after ad.

        http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed

        • Omega Z

          Interesting Scenario.
          Do you realize that if you flip flop the scenario, It works just as good & just as accurately.

          • Bernie777

            No it does not.

          • Bernie777
          • bachcole

            You are just repeating stuff that everyone in the modern world has already read.

            (1) The disagreement is not about climate change. The climate changes constantly.

            (2) I disbelieve the 97% figure.

            (3) Even if I believed the 97% figure, believing authority figures is religion, not science.

            (4) The science that I have seen convinces me that human CO2 emissions has a very small impact on the environment. Here is an excellent rendition of why I disbelieve AGW: http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf I first so most of his information elsewhere, but he did an excellent job putting it all together.

            (5) Pollution sucks. I look forward with extremely keen anticipation to the E-Cat greatly reducing all forms of pollution. The only reason that you and I and anyone else at e-catworld.com continue this pointless debate about AGW is for ego reasons.

            (6) You did not address my point that disbelieving LENR is better supported by mainstream science than is believing AGW. 99.9% of all physicists disbelieve in LENR, while a measly supposedly 97% of all “climate” scientists support AGW.

          • Bernie777

            I have addressed your point comparing LENR and man made climate change. Let me put it another way: On a scale of one to ten, of the entire “scientist” community, those who are aware of LENR is a ONE, mainly because most “scientists” get their information via peer reviewed articles, and there have been zero on LENR. Those “scientists” who are aware of man made climate change is a TEN, mainly because there have been numerous peer reviewed articles about man made climate change. Therefore, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is just no basis for comparing the two unrelated subjects. I am not sure why you want to compare them.

          • there are many peer reviewed article on LENR, some but few recent. (takahashi on iwamura process…).
            the only but pathologically real problem is that in both case only high impact journal are counted and they have an editorial policy about what is the truth to propagate.
            They behave like some french press, french national TV, BBC, who are conscious that they are opinion leader and think that they have to prevent bad information like cold fusion to spread in the public.

            the common point on AGW and LENR is :
            – importance of leading high impact scientific journal in organizing a peer review blocking, which is documented in both cases.
            – importance of leading media like BBC, national TV, NyT, Libération in passively or actively blocking dissenting voice judged as anti-science and unethical.
            – importance on Internet as free speech media
            – presence of internet watchdog defending consensus
            – blocking of free speech in scientific forum in France.
            – both dissenters are opposing the dominant Malthusian/green memeplex, and the big science, big state, big academic memeplex (it seem both memeplex have merged).
            – both dissenting position propose a better world for emerging countries and populations, than the “need to work hard” consensus.
            – there is huge vested interest for AGW (renewables, nuke) and no-LENR (hot fusion physics)
            – AGW and LENR are based on streetlight modelisation… modeling what we know, ignoring what we cannot modelize.
            – in both case the models are clearly challenged by evidence… the pause on AGW, by tritium/heant/he4/transmutations for LENR.

            the difference is that
            – AGW is a positive consensus (it exist), LENr is a negative consensus (it does not exist)
            – dissenters push mostly “absence of evidence” for AGW, and “solid evidence” for LENR
            – AGW is very hard to refute./prove as it is 100years window for low quality highly corrected evidences. LENR is just clearly proven by mass of lab evidence and can be with industrial tea kettle. Most AGW claimes are nearly impossible to prove in an undeniable way as, temperature ate 60-100% of warming corrected, catastrophes are impossible to detect before a century.
            -AGW is politically polarised, and there is massive political investment in US on both side, even if there is huge asymmetry elsewhere, while LENR is only fought by academic and skeptic societies. AGW dissenters are supported by anti-statist politicians, and LENr is defended by “fan club” and individual labs or scientists.
            – Oil companies are cooked by AGW consensus, and cooked by LENR dissensus.

          • Bernie777

            After all of that, the fact still remains that “scientists” get their information from peer reviewed “high impact journals”.

          • that is the problem.
            not better than couch potatoes who get their news from TV or Excec from NyT/WSJ.

            variety of sources, or direct source is a requirement to have real information, but it is too expensive.

            people who have data from mainstream sources only should not debate. they can trust their source better than fringe sources, but should not use their numbers to get prevalence above those who have real direct sources.

        • bachcole

          The scientific case and consensus for NO cold fusion is MUCH better than the scientific case and consensus for AGW. Trying to castigate me by implying that I look at Fox News or that my thinking is like Fox News does not count; it just makes you look incapable of presently a good and reasoned argument.

          • Bernie777

            Is that the best retort you can come up with?

  • Omega Z

    “there were many small, communistic groups in the USA in the late 1960’s”
    Today, Most of them are called Wall Streeters.

  • georgehants

    If oil is used in a power station to generate electricity to charge electric cars, what is the energy loss compared with just using the petrol to drive the car.

    • bkrharold

      I believe the conversion to electricity is about 30% efficient. There is also a loss of 5-10% in the transmission.

      • georgehants

        Thanks bkrharold, I notice how quickly everybody on page jumped to answer my simple question.
        So until all power comes from solar, wind, Cold Fusion etc. it would seem a bit daft to use electric cars?

        • bachcole

          Not quite, but close. If CO2 emissions is the most important concern, then closer. If other pollutants is the most important concern, then farther way. It is easier for a power plant to “scrub” non-CO2 pollutants than is an individual car.

        • bkrharold

          Ford has a solar charger for their c-maxi hybrid

          http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/ford-solar-car-concept-uses-fresnel-lenses-concentrate-sunlight-charging.html

          A German company has a new battery technology called the nanoflowcell which gives a 400 mile range electric only.

          http://www.nanoflowcell.com/en

          Tesla Motors is building a giant battery manufacturing facility in Nevada. They have partnered with Panasonic and Solar City on this ambitious facility due to come online in 2017.

          But you don’t have to wait until they have the perfect battery technology. If you buy an electric or hybrid car today, you will be ready when battery technology is more practical and widely available.

          • Broncobet

            The Ford system isn’t ready, which makes sense if you think about it, how could solar panels on a car charge it up? The system is you need a special carport that is positioned the right way this is covered with Frennel lenses which focus a large area to the small solar panels on the car. As soon as you start charging the sun moves so to make it work the car has to automatically move a little all day.

        • GreenWin

          George, if you do not get caught up in the terror of AGW, using an Electric Vehicle is a convenience in home “fueling.” That is, you can recharge your car at home, rather than paying BP at the petrol pump. While your electric energy comes from fossil/fission – (18p/kWh – UK average) it is quite a bit less costly than petrol (4.91£/gallon.) Thus, you will not save the world from climate change, but you will likely save yourself some cash.

          Looks like the favorite EV in Britain is the Nissan Leaf: http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2014/08/08/nissan-leaf-still-ev-king-in-the-uk-as-sales-surpass-2013s-result/

          Ask your Cornwall Nissan dealer to give you firm cost/savings numbers for the Leaf – electric vehicle.

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, I think you are not taking into account the corruption of a capitalist society.
            I can remember when in the UK, diesel was half the price of petrol until it became popular, now it is more expensive.
            The rich and powerful are going to tax Cold Fusion like everything else just to keep themselves rich and powerful and the lower plebs busy working to pay their taxes and bills.
            Why are solar panels in the UK not being fitted universally free of charge by the unemployed to bring oil imports to nearly zero.
            These people are being paid anyway, not to work.
            The reason is that it would stop the obscene profits from other polluting and expensive sources.

          • GreenWin

            Yes, on the prospect of a CF tax you and Peter agree. The difference between CF and fossil is volume of resources. Fossil is widely believed a diminishing, finite resource. CF, from what we are learning is plausibly using an IN-finite resource to create energy.

            Taxing CF will be a little like taxing the air we breath. If the sheeple allow themselves to be bamboozled this way – they deserve what they get. IMO. 🙂

          • That seems a little harsh, GW. At one time or another, there have been some very large public protests about fuel taxation here in the UK (where we currently pay around £7/$11 per gallon due to taxation policy). One or two planned tax ‘hikes’ have been temporarily cancelled as a result, but the overall effect of such protests on fuel taxation has been next to zero.

            No party here promises to reform the massive 70% tax burden on fuel, so it doesn’t matter who is elected, and short of taking up arms (which we were long ago deprived of) there is nothing much left anyone can do, other than selling their petrol/diesel cars and buying a ridiculously expensive EV in protest (or a bicycle).

            Similar protests about taxation of CF will be likely to have much the same level of success. In fact such action will probably be made to seem antisocial and unpatriotic – an attempt to hinder the introduction of CF (and therefore being ‘pro AGW’) by trying to prevent the necessary funding of the changeover (even if the tax revenues never go anywhere near this process).

          • GreenWin

            Right, I see your point. However, the taxing authority in UK assumes petrol is finite and can therefor invoke a “diminishing resource” argument. CF will scupper that, hopefully. On the other hand, the Nissan Leaf EV averages £22,490 (medium kit added) which IS $10k more than US, but not ridiculous I think. Personally, having driven an EV briefly, I loved to drive past gas stations, knowing I never had to pull in there to keep driving.

          • bachcole

            georgehants, I just don’t understand exactly what it is about your thinking processes that cause you believe such nonsense.

            (1) Diesel rose in price because either demand increased or supply decreased or both.

            (2) Who is going to pay the workers and suppliers who are doing this free work to install solar panels in the UK? How will they eat? Will the restaurants that they go to give them free food when they come into the restaurant and say “Hey, I am one of those guys who is volunteering to install solar panels, for free. Could you please give me a free meal? And the banks will allow the workers to skip their mortgage payment. Etc., etc., etc. I guess we would could hold a gun to those meanie head rich people and force them to pay for it. Then capital and incentive will flee your fair island. Go-getters will say, “Why should I go-get when I know that someone is going to steal my hard earned gains.” And Inventors will say, “Why should I go to all of the trouble to invent when I don’t get anything out of it? I just as soon be a librarian or just watch television and play on the computer like that bum Roger Bird over there in the colonies.”

            Honestly, georgehants, did your mother not love you and you now have a very deep feeling that she SHOULD have loved you. So now all of your economic thinking is based upon shoulds rather than being based upon an understanding of human nature.

          • georgehants

            Very interesting that the moderator has let your reply be posted.
            ——–
            Roger if your reply had not been so silly and insulting I would have been happy to have spent time discussing with you.

          • bachcole

            Proof positive that there is a conspiracy against you. (:->)

          • Broncobet

            George ,at least Bachcole is engaging with you. He had to take the time to write out his response. Isn’t that the fun of this blog??

          • Broncobet

            Bravo.

          • bachcole

            I never realized that the fuel would be cheaper. Duh. Could you be so kind as to translate the 4.91 pounds per gallon into whatever units you are using for the home electricity?

          • GreenWin

            Roger, they are the same unit, i.e. the British Pound Sterling. So, assume 5£ per US gallon would be $8.17. The electric would be $0.29/kWh. In the USA this translates to a per annum savings of about $1250.00 for the Nissan Leaf EV. According to owner records: http://drivingelectric.blogspot.com/2014/01/five-months-in-our-2013-nissan-leaf-and.html

          • Broncobet

            What?? Why did you think there was all this interest in electric cars?( It is true that they accelerate much better) You thought people wanted to pollute less?? Of course that’s part of it but it doesn’t hurt that you spend A LOT less for fuel. I can’t understand why everyone overseas that pays so much for petrol doesn’t own an electric car. $3.65 is bad enough they pay triple.

        • Broncobet

          No.

    • Broncobet

      We don’t use oil on power plants just natural gas,nuclear, coal, and hydro. Even if we used coal to make electricity it would still be more efficient to charge electric cars This is beacause a normal car loses 80% of power out the exhaust as heat while an electric motor just gets warm. But normal cars are easier to fuel.

  • Omega Z

    It will take several decades to replace our current power plants in the U.S.
    Whether using Gas burners or E-cat reactors, A power plant is a power plant. Labor intensive, expensive & time consuming to build.

  • Omega Z

    Take Note.
    Many have commented on JONP that E-cats will replace most existing energy production.
    To Which- Rossi has repeatedly stated that all energies will be integrated which leaves many scratching their head. Say What?

    Take Note.
    I found a post by Rossi that Said- that all energies will be integrated for a long time. The meaning was clear.
    All energies will be integrated for a long time, Because, It will take a long time to transition to LENR. Thus we will use all of them until the old is gradually phased out.

  • Omega Z

    Take Note.
    Many have commented on JONP that E-cats will replace most existing energy production.
    To Which- Rossi has repeatedly stated that all energies will be integrated which leaves many scratching their head. Say What?

    Take Note.
    I found a post by Rossi that Said- that all energies will be integrated for a long time. The meaning was clear.
    All energies will be integrated for a long time, Because, It will take a long time to transition to LENR. Thus we will use all of them until the old is gradually phased out.

    • NCY

      when you say replace, I’m not so sure, it is a large upfront investment to build an energy plant, E-cat or no. i fully expect new energy plants in 5 or so years to be based on e-cat tech, but i don’t think that there will be a massive shift overnight. The energy sector just does not have the money to just retrofit all the power plants in the world.
      add to that the fact that as Energy plants progressively shift toward CF tech, there will be less demand for Coal/Gas meaning cheaper fuel for those plants still operating.

      • bkrharold

        The CF driven boilers could be made to be a plug in replacement part for existing boilers. To your second point the cost of raw materials for the ecat will be a fraction of the cost of coal or oil, no matter how much they cut the price. Even if they gave it away, it would still cost more. Just the cost of shipping thousands of tons of coal or oil will surely be greater than a few pounds of nickel powder and hydrogen.

        • Broncobet

          If the CF reactors were free it doesn’t mean the price to the public will be low, in any case profit will be maximized.

      • Omega Z

        You’re apparently not familiar with my posts.
        I agree as does Rossi. It will take decades to transition. It will require Billions of Reactors & all the additional hardware & Trillion$ of Financed Dollars. Just the everyday expertise & economical restraints to all developments.

        Note that replacement of the Power Plants in the U.S. will likely start as soon as physically possible. A very large portion of U.S. power plants are fast approaching end of life-cycle. In fact, Many are on extended license cycle already because of financial constraints on building new.

        Just my Opinion, Most New power plants will likely be much smaller & built near point of use and older systems will just be dismantled.
        The Old power system had requirements of Fuel transport proximity(Pipelines/Rails) which consequently resulted in very large scale power plants which in turn required access to large bodies of water. Thus dictating where located. Thus long UHV power lines to distribute it.

        E-cats can be of smaller scale, that can easily be supplied with a single small truckload of fuel on an annual basis. Being smaller self contained requiring little water access for occasional topping off & using chill towers can be located at or within most any city/town/village. This vastly reduces the Transport Grid. Even where still necessary will be of a single line nature rather then large towers with many UHV lines.

        • Broncobet

          Meanwhile if he could just heat a cup of water ,it’s not as easy as you think.

          • Omega Z

            I think what you mean is if he would get it to market so that we can heat a cup of water. I’ll add to that. So we can heat 10 cups for the cost of 1, Because there is no doubt it gets hot enough to heat water.

        • Broncobet

          That’s why so many of us are anticipating the MSR nuclear plants to replace those coal plants.They are supposed to be ready in 2022 but sometimes schedules slip.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        If the return on investment is good enough the money will be there

  • Omega Z

    People like Elon Musk & Rossi are usually overly optimistic on time frames.

    On that note, I also wonder if Musk has allowed for new improved battery tech that will possibly be ready to come to market at about the time he’s planning on starting up production in this new battery plant.
    Batteries with half the size, half the weight, half the cost & a 500 to 1000 mile range & double the number of recharge cycles before needing replaced.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In the face of the huge efforts in worldwide research it seems more than likely that we will see drastically improved batteries within the next ten years. But that could become a problem for Tesla in the case that another company would own the technology, and were not willing to license it on acceptable terms. At least from Tesla’s direct competitors I would not expect such a generosity.

      • Broncobet

        Yes, I too thought that disruptive battery tech is lurking about as we read about one all the time, but Elon is ahead of us and put his investment in Li ion getting a little better all the time,like evolution does for life. If another tech came along they could easily set up additional production lines in the gigafactory.There’s no chance,zero, that a better tech with IP would not sell to Tesla,they all sell to each other now,Tesla sells to Toyota and Mercedes Benz, and there are thousands of agreements between different auto makers. The whole rational for developing better battery tech would be first to sell ,license, to Tesla. Musk hears every day from people with better batteries, he tells them all the same thing “send them to me” if a new tech is ever ready Tesla will use it,but there are hundreds of things they must do like safety etc.For the next few years Li ion is the way forward.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Right, Musk has already done the hard part, learned how to manufacture a production totally computerized electric car, and a darn good one, that has a waiting list for delivery.

          • Broncobet

            When they were making maybe a car a day, Elon told everyone on his team “here is my cell phone number if it’s three am on Sunday call me if there’s a problem ” Something huh? Maybe that why he got divorced from his wife who was so beautiful it would make you cry.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, too beautiful is usually a big problem. (:

      • Omega Z

        Andreas Moraitis

        Details, Details…
        Musk does not own the battery tech he aims to build.
        He has formed a partnership with one who does.

        Basically, He is providing the Building & most of the financial arrangements. The partner will provide the manufacturing technology & machines.

        • Broncobet

          Right. Panasonic. Plus hundreds of other companies will be under one roof.

    • bkrharold

      Can you please provide some links to more information on these new battery technologies? I am intrigued.

      • Broncobet

        Ask Google.

      • Broncobet

        Check out the nuclear battery that goes thirty years without a charge.

      • Broncobet

        As I said try Google but also Next Big Future and MIT News. I also read Science Daily and receive Gizmag in email it’s free.

    • Broncobet

      Elon delivers on time. Every day he gets requests for him to look at a new battery tech he tells them all the same thing send them to me. If a new tech is better of course he will use it ,in the meantime he’s making Li-ion better and cheaper .Hope you noticed the nuclear battery that goes 30 years.

      • Omega Z

        Your right,
        Musk actually has a good track record. Especially when personally involved in his own projects. However, I think he hedges his bets. As in, His personal deadline for getting something done may be sooner then official deadlines.
        I learned long ago, It’s better to have a client say he had it done 2 days early rather then 2 days latter then promised.

        My point was certain people tend to have things in common, Like Rossi saying, “The stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stone.” Elon has his sayings of a similar manor. They are also of a Driven nature. We need more people like this.

        • Broncobet

          Your right but he makes outrageous claims for his business and then does it. For example he’s talking of ten giga watts a year capacity,thats like matching the whole world,but do not bet against him.Which you can easily do just buy a put on the stock you think will go down(Space-X is not public) That’s solar city and Tesla. My advise…don’t do it.He has never missed yet.

  • GreenWin

    “A home own does have options to install higher amp and special charging
    stations at home, but that’s not a practical choice for most people.”

    Albert, 90% of North American homes are wired for 220VAC 40-60A – to power electric stoves and clothes dryers. EU standard is 230VAC 32-50A. A home owner can run an additional 220V circuit to a garage for about $250.00 electrician fee.

    You are correct re electric rates in Cali (New York, CT) EIA retail average is 18-20 cents/kWh. Which makes the advent of $.01/kWh residential or district electric (LENR) extremely attractive. Many apartment buildings with underground parking are now installing 220V charging circuits – and commercial charge stations e.g. in shopping malls are arriving daily.

    Still, Tesla’s EV is expensive. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt (hybrid) retail after tax breaks around $25k. EV automakers are in a good position to take advantage of LENR lower electric rates even at half present cost. The “Green” carbon concept is utterly corrupted by climate claims to save polar bears and ice caps. Yet another confirmation of outdated simulation bias.

  • jousterusa

    Demand for home E-Cat units will be through the roof if they can save a homeowner or renter substantially on energy costs and are available at about the cost of a hot water boiler.

  • jousterusa

    Demand for home E-Cat units will be through the roof if they can save a homeowner or renter substantially on energy costs and are available at about the cost of a hot water boiler.

    • Broncobet

      They probably say that now about solar systems.

  • One only needs to see what happened to Stanford Ovshinsky’s battery & solar technology.

    • Broncobet

      I used to follow him forty years ago, I assume he’s dead.

  • Bernie777

    If the return on investment is good enough the money will be there

  • Andreas Moraitis

    According to an article in German news magazine „Stern“, the Liechtenstein-based company NanoFlowcell has obtained a license for use on public roads for their electric sports cars:

    http://www.stern.de/auto/news/elektroauto-mit-salzwasser-antrieb-dieser-sportwagen-tankt-salzwasser-2139405.html
    http://www.nanoflowcell.com/en

    They are using salt water batteries, a technology of which I had never heard before.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    According to an article in German news magazine „Stern“, the Liechtenstein-based company NanoFlowcell has obtained a license for use on public roads for their electric sports cars:

    http://www.stern.de/auto/news/elektroauto-mit-salzwasser-antrieb-dieser-sportwagen-tankt-salzwasser-2139405.html
    http://www.nanoflowcell.com/en

    They are using salt water batteries, a technology of which I had never heard before.

  • Len Fusioneer

    So, What If:

    – one of the many new battery technologies has already proven to be appropriate to those in the know, like Elon? (my favourite for the last few years is the sugar battery by a Utah(!!!) Professor)

    – he wanted to hide the development of a novel new battery until it was ready for installation in a proven application?

    – he, who has blown the word away with his car tech, and stated that the charging of the cars will be free, expects to ramp up production/sales beyond what he can do with his charging stations?

    – Mats Lewan and/or AR didn’t want to spill the beans, so made only passing mention of AR and EM contact?

    – EM knows much more about CF than he mentions in his interviews? (I wonder how much he cringed when his wife mentioned his interest in CF)

    – this clearly talented, resourceful out-of-the-box thinkng entrepreneur needed to produce batteries but the world couldn’t supply them anywhere near as quickly as he wanted?

    – he wanted to sell his cars with the capability of charging themselves?

    Wouldn’t it make some sense to build a large manufacturing facility, say, out in the desert somewhere, to produce power systems for sale?
    Both to Tesla and other consumers of such integrated packages?

    Ya, and say it’s for Li-on batteries because that’s the current technology and what everyone expects.

    Oh, and cover the roof with solar panels because that’s also expected, and he can probably find an affordable source…

  • Len Fusioneer

    So, What If:

    – one of the many new battery technologies has already proven to be appropriate to those in the know, like Elon? (my favourite for the last few years is the sugar battery by a Utah(!!!) Professor)

    – he wanted to hide the development of a novel new battery until it was ready for installation in a proven application?

    – he, who has blown the word away with his car tech, and stated that the charging of the cars will be free, expects to ramp up production/sales beyond what he can do with his charging stations?

    – Mats Lewan and/or AR didn’t want to spill the beans, so made only passing mention of AR and EM contact?

    – EM knows much more about CF than he mentions in his interviews? (I wonder how much he cringed when his wife mentioned his interest in CF)

    – this clearly talented, resourceful out-of-the-box thinkng entrepreneur needed to produce batteries but the world couldn’t supply them anywhere near as quickly as he wanted?

    – he wanted to sell his cars with the capability of charging themselves?

    Wouldn’t it make some sense to build a large manufacturing facility, say, out in the desert somewhere, to produce power systems for sale?
    Both to Tesla and other consumers of such integrated packages?

    Ya, and say it’s for Li-on batteries because that’s the current technology and what everyone expects.

    Oh, and cover the roof with solar panels because that’s also expected, and he can probably find an affordable source…

    • Broncobet

      It’s pretty clear that Elon Musk has no interest in CF,the battery factory is amazing, seventy feet tall and more than a mile long, they can’t say it’s the biggest project in the world as China is rerouting a few rivers and the Panama canal is being remodeled, but it’s one of the world largest buildings.

  • georgehants

    Roger if your reply had not been so silly I would have been happy to have spent time discussing with you.

  • Fortyniner

    I take your point about Rossi’s encounter, but this may only reflect a certain degree of unawareness on the part of vested interests at the time. The nuclear battery and any similar devices are covered by legislation relating to fissile materials, and are therefore already entirely in the corporate province – as CF is likely to be in due course.

  • Fortyniner

    I have to agree. There is still no sign that the gap between hype and reality has closed significantly, and Mills may well burn his way though the next tranche of investment without significant practical results, just as he’s done before.

  • Bernie777

    Right, too beautiful is usually a big problem. (:

  • Christopher Calder

    My prediction is that Tesla motors will be out of business within 5 years. He is selling products that no one really needs, and at a very high price. When batteries/capacitors become really usable and affordable for electric cars, the big automakers will sell the most electric cars and Tesla will be a fad boutique company that came and went.

    • bachcole

      Probably. Tesla/Musk just doesn’t have the muscle that GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. has.

      • Broncobet

        Tomorrow he could own GM.

    • Bernie777

      They said that five years ago, his motor company now has a market cap of 33 Billion Dollars, and they are standing in line for delivery.

    • Omega Z

      Probably not bankrupt…
      A Big Player- Not likely, but still a player.
      Likely a small company selling maybe 200K plus cars a year in addition to selling drive train parts to his competitors. Yes, they already do that. In addition, they’ll by his batteries.

      Even the Big players sell certain models in the low numbers.

    • Heath

      Perhaps you should look at their business plan or watch a fw of his more recent interviews. They are looking to release a ~$30,000 car in the next few years to grab more market share. Look at what Musk and SpaceX did for rocket technology in just a few years and image what Tesla will do with battery innovation with the Gigafactory. I believe they have a bright future.

  • My prediction is that Tesla motors will be out of business within 5 years. He is selling products that no one really needs, and at a very high price. When batteries/capacitors become really usable and affordable for electric cars, the big automakers will sell the most electric cars and Tesla will be a fad boutique company that came and went.

    • bachcole

      Probably. Tesla/Musk just doesn’t have the muscle that GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. has.

      • Broncobet

        Tomorrow he could own GM.

    • Broncobet

      Tesla is not going out of business they are very successful, they started out small but have not remained that way. Tesla is nothing if not muscular, he could buy GM if he wanted which of course he doesn’t.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      They said that five years ago, his motor company now has a market cap of 33 Billion Dollars, and they are standing in line for delivery.

    • Omega Z

      Probably not bankrupt…
      A Big Player- Not likely, but still a player.
      Likely a small company selling maybe 200K plus cars a year in addition to selling drive train parts to his competitors. Yes, they already do that. In addition, they’ll by his batteries.

      Even the Big players sell certain models in the low numbers.

    • Heath

      Perhaps you should look at their business plan or watch a fw of his more recent interviews. They are looking to release a ~$30,000 car in the next few years to grab more market share. Look at what Musk and SpaceX did for rocket technology in just a few years and image what Tesla will do with battery innovation with the Gigafactory. I believe they have a bright future.

  • Bernie777

    Nonsense, they are not denied funding or get funding based on their opinion about climate change, you remind me of the Chairman of the Republican led House SCIENCE Committee, “we won’t have any sea level change because ice melting in water does not increase its volume.”

    • Broncobet

      Well he’s party right that ice in the water melting doesn’t raise the water much but you are right Bernie, because melted sea ice means dark water that absorbs more heat, and cubic miles of land ice on places like Greenland melt each year and change is accelerating .

  • Omega Z

    Your right,
    Musk actually has a good track record. Especially when personally involved in his own projects. However, I think he hedges his bets. As in, His personal deadline for getting something done may be sooner then official deadlines.
    I learned long ago, It’s better to have a client say he had it done 2 days early rather then 2 days latter then promised.

    My point was certain people tend to have things in common, Like Rossi saying, “The stone age didn’t end because they ran out of stone.” Elon has his sayings of a similar manor. They are also of a Driven nature. We need more people like this.

  • Len Fusioneer

    My whimsy below aside; Tesla, with Musk or whoever directs it in the future, will either be a well run business or not. If they are nimble and prescient, they’ll excel.
    They are doing well now and if they adapt to the market as it changes…

    Sure wish I was prescient and bought TSLA in early 2013.

  • Broncobet

    Check out the nuclear battery that goes thirty years without a charge.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    bachcole: To answer your question: Your comparison of climate change scientists and scientists
    that do not accept or do not know about LENR is what I call Fox News logic. There is no comparison, like comparing apples and pickles. Lets take 1000 scientists, 5% have done the LENR experiments and are getting excess energy. 95% of the 1000 scientists have not done the
    experiment and are waiting on peer reviewed confirmation. Climate change: 95% of the 1000 scientists have done extensive research for two decades that says man made climate change is real, and has been reported in 100’s of peer reviewed articles.

    Here is a hilarious clip:
    You can go to 2:50 of the clip after ad.

    http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed

    • Omega Z

      Interesting Scenario.
      Do you realize that if you flip flop the scenario, It works just as good & just as accurately.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        No it does not.

        • bachcole

          Yes it does! Scientifically speaking, cold fusion being unreal is more compelling than AGW being real. The scientists are more certain and there is a higher percentage of them that cold fusion is bunk than there are that AGW is true. I don’t understand why you can’t get that. That does not prove that AGW or cold fusion is true or untrue; it is simply a fact and it nicely illustrates the fact that consensus science is bunk.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            bachcole, you said, “there is a higher percentage of them (scientists) that cold fusion is bunk than there are that AGW is true.” That is just a crazy statement, 95% of “scientists” have not debunked LENR, because they have not done experiments on LENR and have not read any peer reviewed articles on LENR, because there are none, to gain knowledge to have a negitive opinion. Every “scientist” I have talked to has reacted like “I am open to it, show me peer reviewed repeatable proof”.

          • bachcole

            The exact same thing could be said reversed.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer
          • bachcole

            You are just repeating stuff that everyone in the modern world has already read.

            (1) The disagreement is not about climate change. The climate changes constantly.

            (2) I disbelieve the 97% figure.

            (3) Even if I believed the 97% figure, believing authority figures is religion, not science.

            (4) The science that I have seen convinces me that human CO2 emissions has a very small impact on the environment. Here is an excellent rendition of why I disbelieve AGW: http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf I first so most of his information elsewhere, but he did an excellent job putting it all together.

            (5) Pollution sucks. I look forward with extremely keen anticipation to the E-Cat greatly reducing all forms of pollution. The only reason that you and I and anyone else at e-catworld.com continue this pointless debate about AGW is for ego reasons.

            (6) You did not address my point that disbelieving LENR is better supported by mainstream science than is believing AGW. 99.9% of all physicists disbelieve in LENR, while a measly supposedly 97% of all “climate” scientists support AGW.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I have addressed your point comparing LENR and man made climate change. Let me put it another way: On a scale of one to ten, of the entire “scientist” community, those who are aware of LENR is a ONE, mainly because most “scientists” get their information via peer reviewed articles, and there have been zero on LENR. Those “scientists” who are aware of man made climate change is a TEN, mainly because there have been numerous peer reviewed articles about man made climate change. Therefore, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is just no basis for comparing the two unrelated subjects. I am not sure why you want to compare them.

          • bachcole

            Good point.

            However, I am done with this discussion since it is completely pointless. We both know that LENR will make the issue moot.

          • let us sacrifice a boar and share a good barbecue for peace

            http://idata.over-blog.com/2/29/56/51//banquet_asterix.jpg

          • there are many peer reviewed article on LENR, some but few recent. (takahashi on iwamura process…).
            the only but pathologically real problem is that in both case only high impact journal are counted and they have an editorial policy about what is the truth to propagate.
            They behave like some french press, french national TV, BBC, who are conscious that they are opinion leader and think that they have to prevent bad information like cold fusion to spread in the public.

            the common point on AGW and LENR is :
            – importance of leading high impact scientific journal in organizing a peer review blocking, which is documented in both cases.
            – importance of leading media like BBC, national TV, NyT, Libération in passively or actively blocking dissenting voice judged as anti-science and unethical.
            – importance on Internet as free speech media
            – presence of internet watchdog defending consensus
            – blocking of free speech in scientific forum in France.
            – both dissenters are opposing the dominant Malthusian/green memeplex, and the big science, big state, big academic memeplex (it seem both memeplex have merged).
            – both dissenting position propose a better world for emerging countries and populations, than the “need to work hard” consensus.
            – there is huge vested interest for AGW (renewables, nuke) and no-LENR (hot fusion physics)
            – AGW and LENR are based on streetlight modelisation… modeling what we know, ignoring what we cannot modelize.
            – in both case the models are clearly challenged by evidence… the pause on AGW, by tritium/heant/he4/transmutations for LENR.

            the difference is that
            – AGW is a positive consensus (it exist), LENr is a negative consensus (it does not exist)
            – dissenters push mostly “absence of evidence” for AGW, and “solid evidence” for LENR
            – AGW is very hard to refute./prove as it is 100years window for low quality highly corrected evidences. LENR is just clearly proven by mass of lab evidence and can be with industrial tea kettle. Most AGW claimes are nearly impossible to prove in an undeniable way as, temperature ate 60-100% of warming corrected, catastrophes are impossible to detect before a century.
            -AGW is politically polarised, and there is massive political investment in US on both side, even if there is huge asymmetry elsewhere, while LENR is only fought by academic and skeptic societies. AGW dissenters are supported by anti-statist politicians, and LENr is defended by “fan club” and individual labs or scientists.
            – Oil companies are cooked by AGW consensus, and cooked by LENR dissensus.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            After all of that, the fact still remains that “scientists” get their information from peer reviewed “high impact journals”.

          • that is the problem.
            not better than couch potatoes who get their news from TV or Excec from NyT/WSJ.

            variety of sources, or direct source is a requirement to have real information, but it is too expensive.

            people who have data from mainstream sources only should not debate. they can trust their source better than fringe sources, but should not use their numbers to get prevalence above those who have real direct sources.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Roger, you are comparing apples and oranges. The preconditions of research in climatology and condensed matter physics are totally different. Physicists can test their hypotheses by experiments, not only by computer simulations, climatologists cannot. They are operating necessarily on a much more uncertain ground.

          • bachcole

            Thank you for making my case. The consensus of opinion regarding cold fusion is on a much stronger footing than is the consensus of opinion regarding AGW, yet we know that cold fusion is real and hundreds of millions of people drink kool-aid and believe that AGW is real. My thesis is the the consensus of opinion is not a very good epistemological guide, yet Bernie777 thinks that it is with regard to AGW but not with cold fusion.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            But the degree of consensus depends on the epistemological preconditions. The better the methods for testing existing hypotheses, the more hypotheses can be ruled out. If you cannot rule out them reliably, they will continue to coexist. Thus, there will be fewer consensuses between the researchers.

          • bachcole

            I see. But you are assuming that the koolaid drinkers know this. It also assumes that the 97% figure is true, but I have seen discussions where that number is torn apart.

    • bachcole

      The scientific case and consensus for NO cold fusion is MUCH better than the scientific case and consensus for AGW. Trying to castigate me by implying that I look at Fox News or that my thinking is like Fox News does not count; it just makes you look incapable of presently a good and reasoned argument.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Is that the best retort you can come up with?

        • bachcole

          It is all that I have to say to someone who refuses to be reasonable.

  • Bernie777

    bachcole, you said, “there is a higher percentage of them (scientists) that cold fusion is bunk than there are that AGW is true.” That is just a crazy statement, 95% of “scientists” have not debunked LENR, because they have not done experiments on LENR and have not read any peer reviewed articles on LENR, because there are none, to gain knowledge to have a negitive opinion. Every “scientist” I have talked to has reacted like “I am open to it, show me the proof”.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Roger, you are comparing apples and oranges. The preconditions of research in climatology and condensed matter physics are totally different. Physicists can test their hypotheses by experiments, not only by computer simulations, climatologists cannot. They are operating necessarily on a much more uncertain ground.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    But the degree of consensus depends on the epistemological preconditions. The better the methods for testing existing hypotheses, the more hypotheses can be ruled out. If you cannot rule out them reliably, they will continue to coexist. Thus, there will be fewer consensuses between the researchers.

    • bachcole

      I see. But you are assuming that the koolaid drinkers know this. It also assumes that the 97% figure is true, but I have seen discussions where that number is torn apart.