# Is There Enough Nickel? (Pierre)

Here’s a post by Pierre on this thread who is posing a question that might be interesting to readers here.

Not sure if my question was answered, regarding is there enough nickel around to use ecats to replace oil. Would love it to be true through. Need to see the right math.

Seems reasonable that 10 billion people would need 1 billion ecats for all their power needs, and how many grams would these ecats need? We would need to dig it all out of the ground, transport it, etc….I mean, if I need a kilogram to power my lifetime, the. We need 10 billion kilograms, or rather 100 billion to cover several generations?

Nickel is finite and we aren’t going into space to get it.

Is there really 100 billion kilograms of nickel readily available on the planet?

• Billy Jackson

I think that the number i seen floating around was 1% of the nickle we already pull out of the ground each year would be enough to power the worlds current power usage for a year.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/08/11/not-much-nickel-needed/

here is a discussion that several users were having to do with nickel usage (in the comments)

• Omega Z

I think we will use substantially more once the transition is complete.(10%/20%) However that will be a while.

• friendlyprogrammer

Do not forget LENR devices will likely become a dozen plus times (guess) more efficient once the Theory is known and polished.

We must also consider that the process once learned might be adapted to other more abundant metals such as iron.

What we learn from LENR will likely be equal to its benefits.

• Pekka Janhunen

The Lugano test produced about 5e9 J of energy out of 1 gram of nickel (roughly). Of course, it’s a lower limit since the experiment was still running when it was interrupted. I don’t know how large the mineable reserves of nickel are, but the largest metal asteroid, Psyche, has 2e19 kg of material which is thought to be mostly iron and nickel. If one assumes that 10% of it is nickel, then the mass of Psyche corresponds to at least 1e31 J of energy, which is equivalent to running 100 TW of power for 3 billion years (the present global power consumption is roughly 20 TW).

• pelgrim108

Lets hugely underestimate that and say: 1 asteroid can do for the first million years. After that our autonomous robots will mine the rest of the universe.

• Pekka Janhunen

The Lugano test produced about 5e9 J of energy out of 1 gram of nickel (roughly). Of course, it’s a lower limit since the experiment was still running when it was interrupted. I don’t know how large the mineable reserves of nickel are, but the largest metal asteroid, Psyche, has 2e19 kg of material which is thought to be mostly iron and nickel. If one assumes that 10% of it is nickel, then the mass of Psyche corresponds to at least 1e31 J of energy, which is equivalent to running 100 TW of power for 3 billion years (the present global power consumption is roughly 20 TW).

• pelgrim108

Lets hugely underestimate that and say: 1 asteroid can do for the first million years. After that our autonomous robots will mine the rest of the universe.

• Ged

Nickel is the fifth most abundant element on Earth. We currently make around two billion kilograms a year because of low demand, globally. It is also very common in asteroids and other rocky bodies, meaning there’s plenty to mine abroad.

• Ged

Nickel is the fifth most abundant element on Earth {edit note: including the core}. We currently produce around two billion kilograms a year because of low demand, globally. It is also very common in asteroids and other rocky bodies, meaning there’s plenty to mine abroad.

• Good question Pierre. Remember the nickel is recyclable. Just in case, I’m saving my nickels.

• friendlyprogrammer

Nickels used to be made containing Nickel pre WWII (about 25% Nickel/75% Copper). but Nickel was needed in the war so a new recipe came that used no Nickel.

So unless your Nickel has an Indian Head on it, chances are it will power nothing.

A standard Nickel does weigh 5 grams though if you want an idea on how much is needed. So a Nickels weight in Nickel should equal 25+ barrels of oil at todays LENR standards.

• Ophelia Rump

Nice history.

• Omega Z

I’ve got a \$5 dollar roll of Nickels. I’m all set.

• ehj666

According to Wikipedia Nickel is the 24th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, just ahead of Zinc and Copper, whose annual production is 6-8 times that of Nickel. Nickel is also four times as abundant as Lithium, which we now know is involved in the reaction, if only as a “catalyst”. However since the isotope of Lithium in the ash also changes, then presumably it cannot be reused, unlike usual catalysts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust

• Warthog

“Nickel is finite and we aren’t going into space to get it.”

Why would you think this?? With the additional energy available from “earth-sourced” nickel, easy access to space will drop in cost hugely (economics of continuous thrust vs. “burn hard and coast”).
For the rest, see “nickel-iron meteorite”.

• Zeddicus Zul Zorander

True. There are some initiatives already for mining asteroids. E.g:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/arkyd-3/
http://www.planetaryresources.com/
In don’t see any problem with mining asteroids once we have the means to go there and back. We could even bring some asteroids in orbit around the earth / moon. It may sound like science fiction, but in reality we are near in doing so.

• bachcole

Only fuel is stopping us from doing this. Even the shielding from cosmic rays is a non-problem once we have the right fuel.

• Warthog

“Nickel is finite and we aren’t going into space to get it.”

Why would you think this?? With the additional energy available from “earth-sourced” nickel, easy access to space will drop in cost hugely (economics of continuous thrust vs. “burn hard and coast”).
For the rest, see “nickel-iron meteorite”.

• invient

Also, there is the recent development of making diamond nanotubes by compressing benzene and slowly releasing pressure. Length could be controlled, which is the limiting factor in developing a space elevator using carbon nanotubes.

We won’t need to blast in to space in a decade, just get on the platform and press a button.

• Omega Z

“Yeah, What happens when it stalls on the 56th mile. How long before the elevator repairman arrives”, Says the Optimistic Pessimist…

• HS61AF91

antigrav hover craft, get to you at UFO speed?

• Omega Z

Silly Me.

I should have taken the antigrav hover craft to begin with.
10,000 times faster.

• Zeddicus Zul Zorander

True. There are some initiatives already for mining asteroids. E.g:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/arkyd-3/
http://www.planetaryresources.com/
In don’t see any problem with mining asteroids once we have the means to go there and back. We could even bring some asteroids in orbit around the earth / moon. It may sound like science fiction, but in reality we are near in doing so.

• bachcole

Only fuel is stopping us from doing this. Even the shielding from cosmic rays is a non-problem once we have the right fuel.

• flood control engineer

I worked on a mine plan for a new mine that had 1 Billion Kg of reserves. one of several in the area. and not using all of the reserves

• Buck

I think a more appropriate question is:

Is Lithium a catalyst like Nickel or is Lithium 7 a fuel?

If it is a fuel, how much does the planet have of this resource?

• Zeddicus Zul Zorander

Exactly my thoughts also. Nickel seems abundant, but if there is a more finite fuel source involved, it would be the limiting factor.

• bachcole

Without running to Wikipedia for an answer, I will do an opinion piece. Bolivia has by far the largest lithium deposits in the world. Lithium is already in great demand because of lithium batteries, particularly for cars. But Bolivia is a communist country and their glorious leader is not doing any development because he wants to make sure that everyone is treated fairly, so no mining. That’s what he said. I guess Bolivia is one of those truly communist countries that many people here have said we should all strive to become.

Be sure to include in your calculations all of the extra lithium that will be needed when skeptopaths discover that they were way off base on LENR. (:->)

• Buck

Hello Roger,

I’m guessing the scientists will have first crack at this question: “transmuted catalyst or fuel”. Until then, the issue is unresolved and we wait.

• Linda

“Bolivia is a Communist country and their glorious leader… wants to make sure everyone is treated fairly, so no mining.”

And this frustrates you, that everyone is treated fairly? Does the US need to send some planes to go and drop some “Democracy” and “Freedom” on them, so you can get at that nickel?

It is not at all obvious to most people in the world why a tiny number of Capitalists need to own everything on earth, “just because.”

Your faith in Capitalism is truly misplaced. Western Democracy has become a hollow sham, a circus of the disenfranchised. The elites you tacitly support will, when pressed, turn this whole planet into a North Korean style totalitarian regime if that’s what it takes to retain their power and control. And if you don’t believe that, you don’t understand history or human nature.

Communism is an ever-evolving political philosophy. Bolivia, which is a Social Democracy BTW, is doing well. It has huge mineral deposits, a growth rate of 5%, a budget surplus, and a population of only 10 million. Best of all, it is a free country, having shrugged off the parasitic multinationals that tried to enslave them.

We have a lot to learn from places like Bolivia where people have a true democratic voice, where those in need are cared for, and where Imperialism is openly resisted.

• Omega Z

Lithium is but a small portion of the fuel, so likely not a problem. 1/10th of a gram?

I would note that a Japanese research vessel found huge deposits within the 200 mile international development zone off of Hawaii a couple years ago. Possibly larger then all the existing lithium deposits being worked today.

These deposits are deeper then any they’ve worked at before so a lot of engineering will be needed, The depth can be overcome with an automated system, the big engineering issues is guaranteeing it’s environmentally sound. They also have found several huge deposits in the Western U.S. & Alaska. It takes about 10/15 years to open up a new mine. Faster if the Government clears the path a little.

• bachcole

By the time they figure out how to get the lithium up from the sea floor, someone will have figured out how not need lithium for other LENR reactions.

• Buck

OZ,

sounds good . . . and as Roger points out, someone will likely find a method for removing this potential constraint, if needed.

• Donk970

Two things to consider here. One is that the nickel isn’t being consumed but rather transmuted into a more stable isotope of nickel or copper. The nickel is still there. The second is that world wide yearly production of nickel is on the order of a billion kg. Nickel is very common and isn’t being destroyed in the reactor.

• Andreas Moraitis

According to the MS data, the mass of the nickel even slightly increases (see LENR G’s table at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit?pli=1#gid=0 ). Since the isotopic composition is irrelevant for most purposes, the nickel from the ash could be reused by other branches of industry. Therefore, there should be no significant additional demand below the line.

• Albert D. Kallal

Yes, I most certainly hope that nickel while an important ingredient is not really being consumed. I mean we purchase a stove made of metal and the “consumable” is natural gas, propane or whatever. One could “argue” that these stoves still represent a consuming of metal, but as such the metal is not a fuel.

There is some “confusing” as to the recent report that nickel may well be consumed and thus perhaps not able to be re-processed. (Rossi I think is “assuming” such metal can be re-cycled, but I not so sure after looking at the recent report).

However, I am holding out on the view that nickel is NOT the fuel being consumed until we learn more. I would much prefer the “main” consumable is hydrogen, since then such devices likely could run for years without needing anything more then say hydrogen.

And while I suspect we have plenty of nickel to go around, it is mined and traded like most major industrial metals. So be it copper, oil or nickel, such products are traded and subject to rather “large” cartels and trading of the substance.

If the nickel is NOT being consumed, and can be re-cycled, then this is not a worry. If nickel is in fact trans mutated and NOT able to be re-cycled, then we likely have enough, but nickel thus would become the new oil of the future so to speak.
You might be able to re-cycle the trans mutated nickel, but such a re-cycling process would require the energy that was released in the first place to restore that nickel for use again.

Regards,
Albert k

• Donk970

In this test Ni58 and Ni60 were transmuted to Ni62. Ni62 is still nickel and perfectly usable for anything that nickel is used for. In other tests that Rossi has done the Ni is being transmuted to Cu which is even more valuable and useful than the nickel. On top of that, the amount of nickel that would be used every year if you were generating all of the worlds electricity is less than what gets thrown away or lost every year. This just isn’t an issue. Separating the nickel from other metals and non-metals is the same chemical process as separating nickel from nickel ore so, no, you would not be using anything remotely as much as the energy released by “burning” the nickel in the reactor.

• Albert D. Kallal

Not claiming that separation would cost the same energy, I am claiming that transmuting those nickel isotope back to their original values would cost the same energy (a rather VERY different claim).

However, several here have pointed out that this nickel while perhaps not re-usable in an e-cat, would MOST certainly be useable for the “general” nickel industry. So in effect, much like how the photography industry re-used silver, we are NOT burning or destroying nickel and as such this nickel can most certainly be returned to the “general” nickel industry.

However this could suggest that nickel of a particular isotope could be RATHER valuable, and steps to prevent “mixing” or contamination of the general nickel industry with e-cat nickel could over time become a problem. As I stated, it may be too soon to make this conclusion, but the ramifications of this issue are less then perfect. So the fact that you not burning nickel but cannot re-use such nickel in the e-cat really amounts to the same thing for us LENR folks. I don’t care about “general” nickel, but only nickel that works in a e-cat.
I think this issue is certainly manageable, but still represents a less then ideal situation.

Regards,
Albert k.

• Albert D. Kallal

>In other tests that Rossi has done the Ni is being transmuted to Cu

The above is NOT certain and even Rossi admitted that the Cu was likely due to contamination and not transmutation. We need more information on this issue – the latest test did not show Cu. So we have a test and admission by Rossi that Cu is not necessary being produced here.

• Donk970

Two things to consider here. One is that the nickel isn’t being consumed but rather transmuted into a more stable isotope of nickel or copper. The nickel is still there. The second is that world wide yearly production of nickel is on the order of a billion kg. Nickel is very common and isn’t being destroyed in the reactor.

• Andreas Moraitis

According to the MS data, the mass of the nickel even slightly increases (see LENR G’s table at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit?pli=1#gid=0 ). Since the isotopic composition is irrelevant for most purposes, the nickel from the ash could be reused by other branches of industry. Therefore, there should be no significant additional demand below the line.

• bachcole

Some enterprising person will try to mint E-Cat ash nickels, perhaps selling them for \$1.25 apiece.

• Obvious

E-Cat ash nickels would be worth considerably more. Nearly \$100,000.00 each. So if you can find me some for \$1.25, I’ll take as many as you can supply…
If you had a supply of E-Cat ash nickels (by some lucky circumstance), a fun experiment would be to build a mini electrolyser from them, using lithium carbonate in the electrolyte. (Place inside shield designed to hold molten metal, surrounded by boron-rich, thick lead enclosure.)

• bachcole

I believe that it is even more important that once LENR++ is out there and obvious to the most idiotic skeptopathic bureaucrat that the shy boys of science will be unleashed and given a chance to figure out how to do this and learn how to do it better and with many different elements.

• Albert D. Kallal

VERY much agree! We just opening this “box” of technology.

I think research will blow the doors wide open on this, and we likely not even be able to keep up with the mix of “cocktails” that people cook up. So many metals likely will work. We know nickel and palladium works now. Maybe even some forms of ceramic materials will work.

Research will yield amazing an amazing list of possible metals or substances. I suspect you be able to purchase Eveready batteries at 7-11 that run for several years at a time.

The “winning” formula may well not even be nickel, iron, aluminum or copper. And even silver or gold is possible if they are proven to last much longer then nickel.

It simply too soon to pick a winning device and metal based on this technology.
And with competing metals, the cost of such systems likely remain low and affordable.

Regards,
Albert k.

• Mike

bingo.

• Donk970

Yes, the E-Cat is just an initial glimmer of an underlying physics that will prove to be huge. This is a whole new area of physics that we have only just begun to scrape the surface of.

• Albert D. Kallal

Yes, I most certainly hope that nickel while an important ingredient is not really being consumed. I mean we purchase a stove made of metal and the “consumable” is natural gas, propane or whatever. One could “argue” that these stoves still represent a consuming of metal, but as such the metal is not a fuel.

There is some “confusing” as to the recent report that nickel may well be consumed and thus perhaps not able to be re-processed. (Rossi I think is “assuming” such metal can be re-cycled, but I not so sure after looking at the recent report).

However, I am holding out on the view that nickel is NOT the fuel being consumed until we learn more. I would much prefer the “main” consumable is hydrogen, since then such devices likely could run for years without needing anything more then say hydrogen.

And while I suspect we have plenty of nickel to go around, it is mined and traded like most major industrial metals. So be it copper, oil or nickel, such products are traded and subject to rather “large” cartels and trading of the substance.

If the nickel is NOT being consumed, and can be re-cycled, then this is not a worry. If nickel is in fact trans mutated and NOT able to be re-cycled, then we likely have enough, but nickel thus would become the new oil of the future so to speak.
You might be able to re-cycle the trans mutated nickel, but such a re-cycling process would require the energy that was released in the first place to restore that nickel for use again.

Regards,
Albert k

• Donk970

In this test Ni58 and Ni60 were transmuted to Ni62. Ni62 is still nickel and perfectly usable for anything that nickel is used for. In other tests that Rossi has done the Ni is being transmuted to Cu which is even more valuable and useful than the nickel. On top of that, the amount of nickel that would be used every year if you were generating all of the worlds electricity is less than what gets thrown away or lost every year. This just isn’t an issue. Separating the nickel from other metals and non-metals is the same chemical process as separating nickel from nickel ore so, no, you would not be using anything remotely as much as the energy released by “burning” the nickel in the reactor.

• Albert D. Kallal

Not claiming that separation would cost the same energy, I am claiming that transmuting those nickel isotope back to their original values would cost the same energy (a rather VERY different claim).

However, several here have pointed out that this nickel while perhaps not re-usable in an e-cat, would MOST certainly be useable for the “general” nickel industry. So in effect, much like how the photography industry re-used silver, we are NOT burning or destroying nickel and as such this nickel can most certainly be returned to the “general” nickel industry.

However this could suggest that nickel of a particular isotope could be RATHER valuable, and steps to prevent “mixing” or contamination of the general nickel industry with e-cat nickel could over time become a problem. As I stated, it may be too soon to make this conclusion, but the ramifications of this issue are less then perfect. So the fact that you not burning nickel but cannot re-use such nickel in the e-cat really amounts to the same thing for us LENR folks. I don’t care about “general” nickel, but only nickel that works in a e-cat.
I think this issue is certainly manageable, but still represents a less then ideal situation.

Regards,
Albert k.

• Albert D. Kallal

>In other tests that Rossi has done the Ni is being transmuted to Cu

The above is NOT certain and even Rossi admitted that the Cu was likely due to contamination and not transmutation. We need more information on this issue – the latest test did not show Cu. So we have a test and admission by Rossi that Cu is not necessary being produced here.

• Herb Gillis

Correct me if I am wrong; but we still don’t know how much of the energy is coming from Ni, v.s. Li, v.s other reactions (such as the formation of Helium).

• LilyLover

•Nickel is regenerated per Dr. Rossi.
•The key to everything seems to be
nascencey of Hydrogen atoms and their ability to interact with metal
lattice.
•Like induction cookers for iron pots are commercially available
today while the ones for copper pots are in R&D, soon enought, in
the big picture, we’ll learn to exploit hydorgen’s interaction with any
other metal.
•If oil can support x generations, nickel can definitely support 100x to 1000x generations!!
•If ever asteroid mining had one purpose … (Makes you wonder if the ETs used Battlestar Gallectica to subtley guide human scientists to the right way of thinking…)
•&
Then again Ni is not the only metal; nor is Ni-H the only type of
reactions.
•Mill’s Magic Hydrinos are still like the rainbows – he sees
it, but cannot capture it to show you.
The fun has just begun!

• LilyLover

•Nickel is regenerated per Dr. Rossi.
•The key to everything seems to be
nascencey of Hydrogen atoms and their ability to interact with metal
lattice.
•Like induction cookers for iron pots are commercially available
today while the ones for copper pots are in R&D, soon enought, in
the big picture, we’ll learn to exploit hydorgen’s interaction with any
other metal.
•If oil can support x generations, nickel can definitely support 100x to 1000x generations!!
•If ever asteroid mining had one purpose … (Makes you wonder if the ETs used Battlestar Gallectica to subtley guide human scientists to the right way of thinking…)
•&
Then again Ni is not the only metal; nor is Ni-H the only type of
reactions.
•Mill’s Magic Hydrinos are still like the rainbows – he sees
it, but cannot capture it to show you.
The fun has just begun!

• friendlyprogrammer

One thing the Rossi camp has said and others, is that 1 gram of Nickel should equal 5 barrels of oil in usable energy.

I am not sure how that estimate was arrived at, but that puts a kilogram of Nickel that this article suggests is necessary for 1 person equal to about 5000 barrels of oil.

So a kilogram of Nickel as this article suggests is equal to 5000 barrels of oil. If a person lives for 100 years (above average by far for now) then that means they would need to consume a barrel of oil a week from their infancy to the age of 100 to use up that amount of energy.

Also. LENR is in its infancy. Where it might be equal to 5 barrels of oil per gram now, imagine how efficient it may become once it is understood. The cars of today are far more fuel efficient than in the days of Fords Model-T. A gram of Nickel may one day be able to equal 50 barrels of oil.

Nickel is the fifth most common element on the planet, and far far more abundant than oil.

Not only would there be plenty of Nickel for many generations, but I doubt we’d see a rise in its value for many years.

• BillH

Yes, there will be enough Nickel. This technology is likely to take decades to roll out. Lithium will probably be the more expensive and limiting component of the fuel.

• gc

Some have commented on the re-usability of Nickel or Lithium. Notably Ni-62 (the highest
binding energy per nucleon) appears to be an end state and Li-7 was almost fully converted to
Li-6. If the available isotope is important, this would suggest one-time use and consumption
of the active isotope(s).

• Omega Z

“Yeah, What happens when it stalls on the 56th mile. How long before the elevator repairman arrives”, Says the Optimistic Pessimist…

• mytakeis

antigrav hover craft, get to you at UFO speed?

• Omega Z

Silly Me.

I should have taken the antigrav hover craft to begin with.
10,000 times faster.

• PappyYokum

It may be that once it is understood what it is that is happening to produce the extra heat, it will not be necessary to restrict the “fuel” to being nickel and lithium. Other materials may work just as well.

• Zeddicus Zul Zorander

That’s a good point and entirely possible. Once the reaction is fully understood, there may be many materials that can be used as fuel.

• mcloki

I would assume that Palladium would be one of those ingredients. Even though it is rare and expensive. The nice part about nickel is that it was so abundant that America and Canada both used it as currency of the realm.

• John Littlemist

https://www.dropbox.com/s/46g0h84t93crjig/Etiam_oy_patenttihakemus.pdf
Nickel is not the only possible “fuel”.

• pierre

won’t ecat lithium have to compete with lithium batteries?

• Donk970

The E-Cat just borrows the lithium and then gives it back as a different isotope. Shouldn’t impact any other industry at all.

• pierre

won’t ecat lithium have to compete with lithium batteries?

• Donk970

The E-Cat just borrows the lithium and then gives it back as a different isotope. Shouldn’t impact any other industry at all.

• Ophelia Rump

A nickel, in American usage, is a five-cent coin struck by the United States Mint. Composed of 75% copper and 25% nickel, the piece has been issued since 1866. The silver half dime, equal to five cents, had been issued since the 1790s.

• mcloki

Actually we will be going to space to get it. if the e-cat works then finding nickel and hydrogen in space would mean perpetual missions could be a possibility

• Space companies have explored the possibility to specifically mine nickel in space for heat shield. Not sure if relevant (?) when we have the cf rockets ready and the cost of bringing payload to space drops.

• Ophelia Rump

Pierre, If nickle became as in demand as oil, and there was not a sufficient supply of nickel on Earth; people would be launched into space in old oil drums if that was what it took to get more.

Crude oil is \$ 81 per barrel.
5000 crude oil barrels of energy in a kilogram of nickel.
An oil barrel will hold 254.38 kilograms of nickel.

So there are 1271900 oil barrels of energy in an oil barrel of nickel.
An oil drum of nickel would be worth \$103,023,900 worth of oil.

Of course the shear extravagance of these numbers will prove them to be an obsolete concept. There will be a new paradigm derived from the new abundance.

If there were not enough nickle on earth it would be a bargain to bring it from space at 50 million a barrel.

• Obvious

The moon is littered with nickel-iron meteorites. Robots could rail gun them to earth (to a safe, designated spot). Hmmm, on second thought, maybe putting them into a Trojan point and sending them down to Earth a little more slowly might be a better idea.

• Ophelia Rump

That was a good laugh! I expect we have enough already for quite a while.
Great ideas gone horribly wrong. I think I will carry an umbrella from now on.
But yes, by all means slow them down.

• Andrew

The nickel isn’t the problem. It’s the lithium. Easily attainable lithium is much much much more scarce.

• Obvious

Lithium is much more scarce than nickel, but is still cheap and available. Current prices for lithium carbonate are around \$5000 to \$6000 per tonne. Pure lithium metal is more expensive, but is a rather a nasty thing to store and use. (Lithium carbonate isn’t exactly for the sloppy or incautious chemist either).

• US_Citizen71

Li6 should work just fine in Li ion and Li-Polymer batteries so the ash can be put to work in your cellphone, as an added bonus pure Li6 batteries will be ~5% lighter than the current mixed isotope ones. Reversely old cellphone batteries can be harvested for their Li7. Beyond mining Li can be had by evaporating seawater, which is how the easy to mine deposits came into being in the first place. There is likely just as much if not more Li dissolved in seawater as there is Li in the easy to mine deposits.

• Obvious

E-Cat ash nickels would be worth considerably more. Nearly \$100,000.00 each. So if you can find me some for \$1.25, I’ll take as many as you can supply…
If you had a supply of E-Cat ash nickels (by some lucky circumstance), a fun experiment would be to build a mini electrolyser from them, using lithium carbonate in the electrolyte. (Place inside shield designed to hold molten metal, surrounded by boron-rich, thick lead enclosure.)

• bfast

Nickel is one of the most abundant of metals. The e-cat uses shockingly little, to match the current energy from all other sources, the consumption of nickel would go up about 3%.

Lithium? Well, I haven’t looked into lithium too closely. However, the most obvious use for lithium is in batteries. If an e-cat can be made small enough, it’ll replace most batteries.

• Donk970

Since the nickel is just transmuted to it’s most stable isotope Ni62 the “spent” nickel will just be extracted out and sold back into industry. So there would not be an increased demand at all. The E-Cat industry would basically borrow nickel in it’s natural form of Ni58 and Ni60 and give it back as Ni62.

• bfast

Nickel is one of the most abundant of metals. The e-cat uses shockingly little, to match the current energy from all other sources, the consumption of nickel would go up about 3%.

Lithium? Well, I haven’t looked into lithium too closely. However, the most obvious use for lithium is in batteries. If an e-cat can be made small enough, it’ll replace most batteries.

• Donk970

Since the nickel is just transmuted to it’s most stable isotope Ni62 the “spent” nickel will just be extracted out and sold back into industry. So there would not be an increased demand at all. The E-Cat industry would basically borrow nickel in it’s natural form of Ni58 and Ni60 and give it back as Ni62.

• US_Citizen71

1 kg of nickel equals approximately 5 \$2 rolls of US nickels. Just pick up six from any US bank for \$12 and you should be covered in case of slight purity problems. The US produced 1,223,040,000 nickels last year using 6,115,200 kg of nickel.

• Obvious

That’s interesting. Those figures add up to 5 g per nickel, but U.S. “nickels” aren’t mostly nickel, they are 75% copper. (I think that the official name is “5 cent coin”. Maybe the other 4 g of nickel per “nickel” gets fed into black projects?…

• US_Citizen71

Yep, you are numbers four by a factor of four.

• Obvious

I believe the name “nickel” for the 5 cent coin is borrowed from the Canadian 5 cent piece, which was made of 99.9% nickel from 1922 to 1982 (after 1982 it became too costly, more than 5 cents to make, [and during WW2 nickel was reduced due to war needs and shortages, so lesser alloys were used]). Prior to 1945, Canadian “nickels” were 99% Ni, and after the war, they became 99.9% pure Ni.

So the story goes, the Canadian Mint made coins of high Ni purity to show off the large nickel resources that Canada has. (See the Giant Nickel in Sudbury, Canada, a major nickel mining area). Other Canadian coins, after being debased from high silver content circa 1968, were also gradually reduced to lesser valued alloys as the price to make them relative to their face value increased. The Canadian 25 cent piece was 99.9% Ni from 1968 to 1999. The Canadian 10 cent piece was also 99.9% nickel from 1968 to 1999.

I don’t know why the name “nickel” became associated with the 5 cent piece, but probably it is due to the fact that a quarter dollar and the disme (derived from Latin for “one tenth”) were names already associated with the other coins, and “5 cent piece” is a mouthful compared to the other names.

• US_Citizen71

1 kg of nickel equals approximately 5 \$2 rolls of US nickels. Just pick up six from any US bank for \$12 and you should be covered in case of slight purity problems. The US produced 1,223,040,000 nickels last year using 6,115,200 kg of nickel.

• Obvious

That’s interesting. Those figures add up to 5 g per nickel, but U.S. “nickels” aren’t mostly nickel, they are 75% copper. (I think that the official name is “5 cent coin”). Maybe the other 4 g of nickel per “nickel” gets fed into black projects?…

• US_Citizen71

Yep, you are correct numbers are off by a factor of four.

• Obvious

I believe the name “nickel” for the 5 cent coin is borrowed from the Canadian 5 cent piece, which was made of 99.9% nickel from 1922 to 1982 (after 1982 it became too costly, more than 5 cents to make, [and during WW2 nickel was reduced due to war needs and shortages, so lesser alloys were used]). Prior to 1945, Canadian “nickels” were 99% Ni, and after the war, they became 99.9% pure Ni.

So the story goes, the Canadian Mint made coins of high Ni purity to show off the large nickel resources that Canada has. (See the Giant Nickel in Sudbury, Canada, a major nickel mining area). Other Canadian coins, after being debased from high silver content circa 1968, were also gradually reduced to lesser valued alloys as the price to make them relative to their face value increased. The Canadian 25 cent piece was 99.9% Ni from 1968 to 1999. The Canadian 10 cent piece was also 99.9% nickel from 1968 to 1999.

I don’t know why the name “nickel” became associated with the 5 cent piece in the U.S., but probably it is due to the fact that a quarter dollar and the disme (derived from Latin for “one tenth”) were names already associated with the other coins, and “5 cent piece” is a mouthful compared to the other names.

• drobertson

You are right that there is always pressure to reduce the costs of producing currency, but the fact that a coin costs more to make than its face value is almost insignificant.
Coins are designed to be reused over and over again. The economic usage of a nickle of more determine by how many transactions it participates in than its cost to produce. The mints are far more interested in the physical longevity of the coins than their production costs.
This actually becomes more of an issue with paper money than with coins. Banks regularly return less than perfect paper money to get destroyed. The faster the paper money breaks down the more they have to destroy and replace.

• Obvious

I sort of agree. But when the metal (melt) value of a coin exceeds its face value, it generally leads to hoarding and destroying the coins for the metal content, so they do not circulate as much. How many low denomination silver coins are still in circulation? The essentially pure nickel Canadian nickels and dimes are already scarce, and the nickel quarters are disappearing rapidly also. (I spend a lot of time in Canada, and always check my change).

• drobertson

I agree with the risk of the destruction of the coins for their metal value. In my post I was thinking of the manufacturing costs vs face value that is a bit different.

For coins to be destroyed for their metal value the price of the metal content need to be worth a lot more than the face value and there needs to be a ready market willing to pay a fair price for that metal. When you are on the recovery side of the game there is a huge amount of price slippage. You never really get close to the spot price of the metals.

Silver is one case where that def did happen and I would be happy to grab as many true silver coins as I can get. Copper in real copper pennies may also have hit that edge. I think nickel is pretty far away right now, but hey, that could change.

• Anon2012_2014

The earth’s core is nickel/iron. It has a mass of 1.7 * 10^24 kg. Assuming it is half nickel, or about 10^24 and that we have a stable population of about 10^10, we have 10^14 years on the nickel in the core, i.e. about 10,000 times longer than the age of the universe.

The earth all came about of the same accretion disk, so there must be plenty of nickel around for our Rossi powered spaceships to send down on the giant tether rope, or to simply de-orbit for impact somewhere in the uninhabited portions of northern Canada. There is a lot of empty yet solid earth down there if you have looked at it while bored flying to Asia in the summer.

• Albert D. Kallal

VERY much agree! We just opening this “box” of technology.

I think research will blow the doors wide open on this, and we likely not even be able to keep up with the mix of “cocktails” that people cook up. So many metals likely will work. We know nickel and palladium works now. Maybe even some forms of ceramic materials will work.

Research will yield amazing an amazing list of possible metals or substances. I suspect you be able to purchase Eveready batteries at 7-11 that run for several years at a time.

The “winning” formula may well not even be nickel, iron, aluminum or copper. And even silver or gold is possible if they are proven to last much longer then nickel.

It simply too soon to pick a winning device and metal based on this technology.
And with competing metals, the cost of such systems likely remain low and affordable.

Regards,
Albert k.

• A friend of mine is into jewelry casting. He had a jelly jar full of powdered nickel. When he showed me I began to salivate.

• Morgan

I can’t find it right now but I remember someone did all the math. I think it was said that 1% of the current nickel being mined already is enough to last a year. then they go on to say there is enough nickel on earth to last more than 10,000 years, and then after that we have the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter which would last millions and millions of years

• Nicolas Chauvin

NASA has estimated 5% to 10% the overall increase of nickel production needed if the entire world population (10 billion) would switch to LENR for all their energy needs and if they were all consuming energy as in industrialized countries.
So yes, their is enough nickel.

Moreover, nickel ashes from LENR reaction can still be used for any chemical or mechanical use.
So it can be recycled for any non LENR usage.

Nickel production will not a problem. And LENR at large scale will not affect the price of nickel.

• Donk970

This is assuming that the Ni62 wont work in the E-Cat. That’s a crucial experiment to run – will the reaction go when the substrate is pure Ni62? If yes then you are looking at simply extracting the raw elements out of the ash and reforming them into new fuel substrate. If no then you are looking at selling the Ni62 to be used in industry and using natural nickel as the fuel substrate. Either way you are not loosing any nickel for other purposes.

• Frederic

Do you have a link on this NASA estimation ?
Thanks

• Donk970

Yes, the E-Cat is just an initial glimmer of an underlying physics that will prove to be huge. This is a whole new area of physics that we have only just begun to scrape the surface of.

• Donk970

This is assuming that the Ni62 wont work in the E-Cat. That’s a crucial experiment to run – will the reaction go when the substrate is pure Ni62? If yes then you are looking at simply extracting the raw elements out of the ash and reforming them into new fuel substrate. If no then you are looking at selling the Ni62 to be used in industry and using natural nickel as the fuel substrate. Either way you are not loosing any nickel for other purposes.

• Nicolas Chauvin

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

It is actually 1% according to Dennis Bushnell (Chief Scientist of NASA Langley Research Center)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/snapshot_DBushnell.html

• Obvious

I sort of agree. But when the metal (melt) value of a coin exceeds its face value, it generally leads to hoarding and destroying the coins for the metal content, so they do not circulate as much. How many low denomination silver coins are still in circulation? The essentially pure nickel Canadian nickels and dimes are already scarce, and the nickel quarters are disappearing rapidly also. (I spend a lot of time in Canada, and always check my change).