Rossi on E-Cat Jobs: Hopes to Create Employment in ‘Massive Measure’ [Updated]

We have been having an interesting discussion on another thread about the place of jobs and employment in an ever-more automated world, and what the eventual outcome might be.  Andrea Rossi has said recently that he is very desirous to create jobs as part of his commercialization of the E-Cat and so I posted a question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics and received a prompt reply from Rossi:

Frank Acland

Dear Andrea,
What are the kinds of jobs you hope to see created as a result of your work with the E-Cat?
Many thanks,


Andrea Rossi

Frank Acland:
Thank you for this important question. The mass production of E-Cats will generate a miscellanea of jobs: blue collars, white collars, chemical engineers, physicists, infomatics, electronic engineers…industrial E-Cats are very complex machines, demanding many integrated disciplines; I hope this work of us will be a game changer in the employment sector. I really hope that we will be able to create jobs in massive measure, directly and indirectly. I have been born as an enterpreneur, and the essence of enterpreneurship is to create jobs. Unfortunately in our present times money is made principally by means of financial speculations and it is not good, because this kind of richness is made without producing things with real value; real value can be conferred only by the work incorporated in it. In this sense we hope to help the game changing. Industry and production of real things redistributes welfare and make shared richness, while financial speculation concentrates richness in few parasitic organizations without making jobs and therefore without sharing richness. Financial speculation is the real liability of contemporary economy; is made by persons that want to earn money without producing anything useful, just making money with money, so that the money loses its original nature, which is the incorporation of work. Banks are using money to make more money in more or less borderline speculations, instead of financing the industries properly.To return to the sound economy based on the production of real things we must invent products worth to be made; the E-Cat, if it works well, can help. In the meantime the law should forbid ( really) to the banks to act as financial speculators, using the money to speculate instead of financing really productive activities that create jobs and produce shared welfare.
Warm Regards,

It’s interesting to me to see here Rossi’s philosophy of entrepreneurship — that he sees it as a vehicle to not only create a useful product, but to create ‘welfare and shared richness’ to workers.

If Industrial Heat does eventually start mass producing E-Cats, workers will certainly be needed to build, distribute, install and maintain the plants — but whether that will create jobs in ‘massive measure’ is another question. If Industrial Heat are going to create low-cost E-Cats on a large scale, there will need to be automation in place, and we remember that Rossi has often talked about ‘robotized factories’.

And at this point it is somewhat premature to speculate about the scale of job creation when we don’t know how well the first plant will perform. If it is a spectacular success, it would be a historic machine, and I would imagine demand for it will be very high. Then will be the time when we will see what kinds of jobs will be needed to enable E-Cat technology to proliferate.

UPDATE: Here’s a follow-up Q&A with Andrea Rossi on the same topic.

Dear Andrea,

You have talked the necessity of bringing down the cost of E-Cat production for competitive reasons and using robotized production lines, which would reduce the role of human employees in the manufacturing process.
Do you forsee most employment opportunities surrounding the E-Cat coming on the R&D side of your operations? Or other areas?


Frank Acland:
As you well know cars are made with intense use of robots, but still carmakers are strong employers. The areas of employment are extensive, not just in R&D, but also along the production lines and all the infinite series of activity made necessary from the evolving sophistication of a product like this.
Warm Regards,

  • SiriusMan

    I could not agree more with Dr. Rossi’s statements about ‘financial speculation’ and ‘parasitic organizations’.

    Aside from simply reducing the cost of energy, LENR will enable entire new industries to arise. The high energy density enables a new class of machinery to be built….and they will make our old machines look hopelessly outdated. The emergence of this new tech will trigger a new space race, as private sector entrepreneurs race to exploit the resources of space (asteroid mining).

    All of these things will require a new workforce of highly skilled workers. Real (as opposed to artificial, speculative) economic growth will result from all this activity.

  • jousterusa

    A lot will depend upon Rossi’s commitment to trick electricity out of the e-Cat. To the extent he does that, jobs will multiply into the millions. If not, the main impact will be the relocation of labor from contemporary energy industries to alternative energy industries with little net gain. If he succeeds in producing electricity with home E-Cats, every home in America will want and need one, and every car in America will have one as a source of power for its engine. Even with his robotic assembly lines, ten million jobs will be created over the next 20 years.

  • Jonnyb

    I really like Rossi’s philosophy of entrepreneurship. I now, even more than ever, hope that Rossi pulls this off and can provide some humanity to the world order. Mankind is at at cross roads, it can carry on with personal greed or take the other path to a more fairer and sharing society. I suspect in the long run mankind will be unable to come up with a workable new model for society, and the same old families will continue to rule our worlds.

  • Hi all

    LENR will add massively to the world economy. It is an enabling technology that will allow us to do things we have only dreamed of. Why do you think NASA were so interested? Why do you think so many new private space start-ups have appeared in the last couple of years. None of their plans to mine asteroids or the moon are possible without LENR.

    Vertical farming under the car lots of your local hypermarkets will provide most of your organic fresh vegetables without the massive transport costs. Any industry that uses heat, from the makers of the crockery on your table to the bricks that build your house are about to have their energy costs slashed, and it will enable them to build better materials that were just too expensive to provide.

    Why do you think Boeing and Airbus are such early adopters. Airplanes that do not need fueling will continuously cruise the planet, we may actualy see a return to real Air-Liners that cruise the air for holidays above the clouds.

    Your local swimming pool just lost its biggest cost!

    Think people!

    Kind Regards walker

    • mytakeis

      really like your comments.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is my brother, performing a song in 1994 he wrote over 20 years ago, the situation of people who acquire the majority of money in the system for doing nothing of value, only churning money they actually don’t have, has only got worse.

    When I was helping the Occupy London media team a few years back, he reprised the song in front of St. Pauls cathedral and changed the lyrics from “in these four walls” to “in these city walls” as it was in the “city of london” a state within a state within its own laws designed to protect the financial oligarchs. I’ll try to dig out that copy and post it.

    He also has another one, written about the same time, about the stifling of technology being a crime and that people should be “sitting in the sun, making love, having fun – that’s the peoples right yeh” – about what should happen at the end of jobs.

  • HarryD

    High time to introduce the “Unconditional Basic Income” a.k.a.UBI where each citizen gets a unconditional free financial basis on which one make extra income by work.
    There are different models but generally an increase of VAT is part of implementation.
    THIS IS NOT A COMMUNIST MODEL and income differentiation only gets flattened out at the bottom.
    In contrast of what 80% of people think, being that many would stop working, also 80% says that they will continue to work “normally”.
    The norm nevertheless would change because one can switch jobs more easy (less insecurities in transition) AND it will be much cheaper to hire personel and thus easier to start a business or a COOPERATION….

    An petition initiative to put the UBI on the European agenda by getting 1 million “signatures” (and have it legally binding) faulted because it is was not known enough and a lot of misconception around the matter.
    More info see

    We are going to have LENR and in future more amazing and truly free energy, and we are going to have AI and robotics come to new high levels currently only know from SF but very soon to be see IRL….. the question is whether we will have social and economic structures accordingly via means of political anticipation and whether it will be introduced with or with-out the “need” of huge social disruption.

    • psi2u2

      The idea was probably somewhat in advance of the required awareness of the need to transform our social and economic models. It will come.

    • Billy Jackson

      Harry. eventually this will happen. combine what you said here with the article on robotics from yesterday along with AI, 3d printing, space exploitation of resources, near unlimited energy. and you get a changing world economy that will effect everyone. at some point food, energy, and housing are going to be dirt cheap with these things in our future.. and only so many jobs can be created so fast.. i don’t know when it will happen but i expect it will be more of a case that those who want to work will and receive benefits for doing so.. while those who don’t want to work will go on some form of public housing / living stipend that provides them basic living but not much more than that.. food in the fridge, electricity, and a roof over your head.

      say 50-100 years from now we may see a case where students are competing in school to get good grades for the few jobs available for the best and brightest, the age of the dumb peasant or even the low wage worker is slowly closing out.. so remaining intentionally ignorant or unschooled , or high school dropouts may eventually be a lot rarer than it is now.

    • Bob

      Oddly, this is a little contradictory to what Rossi is saying. He says it is bad that money is made “without” producing anything of value. Yet, that is exactly what a guaranteed income does…. infuse money into people’s economy without them ever producing anything. (or earning it.)

      I have worked in manufacturing for many years in the US. In these manufacturing arenas, I have personally seen this “norm”. When there is low paying jobs available, people on general welfare will not work at them. I personally hear all the time….”Why should I work at this job when I can stay at home and draw the same amount and not have to do anything?” And they quit and go home. Even today, we cannot keep entry level people employed at our facility paying $12.00 per hour. They quit, go home, party on the weekends and draw welfare. Even for a few thousand more a year, they would stay at home and not work. They do not want to get up everyday and come to work.

      I am not saying that change is not needed…. I personally am of the persuasion that one should “earn” their keep. What we need is more opportunities, not more free hand outs. We need more education, teaching more responsibility, etc. ” Give them a fish, they eat for day, teach them to fish and they eat for a life time.” If the government is going to insure that everyone has the same basic level of income, it will produce generations of people who are dependent on the government and not themselves. (Hmmm….. I see that now!!)

      It is stated that 80% would keep working. That number will surely change over time as the societal “norm” becomes more dependent on the government and not self sufficiency. I do not really believe the 80% now, but it surely would drop dramatically
      over a short period of time.

      Also, often people talk about giving out this income…. this money has to come from somewhere. The US is trillions in debt… who will pay for this? Tax more of the working people to pay for those who do not? More disincentive to work. The money does have to come from somewhere. If you just start printing it, inflation will take over in no time.

      I am reminded of the native American Indian’s situation before the white man arrived. Their economy had no futures trading, no corporations, no evil board of directors. Everyone was on the same even playing field. There was no regulated currency in which Wall Street controlled via evil intentions and corruption. Everyone was born with the same chance. Yet, if you did not work, you did not eat. There was no free ride.
      Why? The same as today. If someone else was going to do back breaking work harvesting the corn and I was guaranteed an equal share while I layed around in the shade….

      No… I agree with Rossi…. money should be earned by producing something valuable…. not gotten “for free”. Society has the responsibility to insure opportunity and fairness, not constitution rights to have “I do not want to work, so I can always take the free ride”
      mentality. There must be personal responsibility involved. It is not an easy situation to fix.

      • psi2u2

        I don’t think it is the same thing at all. The “bad money” Rossi is talking about is our banking system. That is not at all the same thing as providing individuals living in a wealthy, robotized society, with a guaranteed level of income. This does not remove the incentive of making more money through various entrepreneurial or scientific means, but it does distribute some of the wealth of highly productive machines throughout the society that provided the infrastructure (including labor) to make them possible. The alternative is that the 1% continues to get richer, the rest, unemployed, begin to start and we get class warfare.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        The crux of the problem is simple. If we the rate at which automation is applied to work is higher than the rate at which new jobs are created. Then you end up with structural unemployment. That is an oversimplification of what I see in our current economy. Instead what we really have is the rate at which automation is applied to work is higher than the rate at which people can get retrained for the new jobs. Its a subtle difference but an important one. As long as we don’t have the type of AI depicted in SCI-FI movies/books the only thing we can automate are the processes people do that only require rote memorization. Human beings are a sub optimal execution medium for these types of processes. Since, that’s the best option we have so we use it. Unfortunately you need to load the Human beings brain with the how, and the education system we have now for doing that currently sucks. Especially when it has to cope with an increasing number of dumb tools that need a skilled hand at wielding them.

        The other problem is Businesses have a weak connection to the cost of educating a workforce. A business has no way of shaping as a whole the workers it needs. We used to have wide spread apprenticeships but that is found in a small number of areas now. The norm nowadays is to be able to find someone who can hit the ground running. Now I can understand why companies like this idea, They dont need to commit the resources to train someone who under current laws is able to up and leave when they want. I personally feel that companies should have the freedom to craft a contract that entitles them to a specific number of years of your time if they invest resources into training you. If the laborer decides to quite the job to go to a competitor, then there should be reasonable consequences for that decision. I also think there should be a trap door in the contract for situations where the employer ceases to have the ability to pay the worker their market rate. an employee really should be penalized for miss management of the company.

        As for the basic income idea. I am on the fence where that is concerned. I like the idea because it would increase the fluidity of the labor system. There would be little reason to stay at a job you don’t like merely because you need to survive. That said I understand the concern that while one can assume that only a small number of people would free load that percentage could grow over time as the norm changes. I do have a hard time seeing how that would happen as I cannot envision myself simply existing doing nothing. From where I stand a life where one only wakes up and consumes and does nothing with their brain would be as mind numbingly painful as working a low skill job for the rest of my life irrespective of pay level. That said, I grew up in a culture and environment that pushed me to be this way so I am not the best judge. However, I believe that would be the solution to the problem. Or at least a pre requisite. IF your going to enact a UBI system then you need to make sure that an over whelming majority of your population is brought up in an environment that effectively makes people love the idea of doing something with themselves. Which means we would still need to fix our education system. In addition I doubt that our rethinking our education system is the only problem we would need to solve. When people propose UBI there are alot of either unevaluated or unshared assumptions that need to be enumerated. Because simply handing out money tomorrow to people cannot be the end in and of itself.

        As for where the money comes from, I believe this is another one of those unevaluated or unshared assumptions. Without putting much thought into it. I would assume the way you would pay for a UBI would require a drastic reduction in the cost of goods and services in the economy. Not by arbitrarily setting a price ceiling but by government investing in the research necessary to drastically increase the production capacity of all basic goods and services. For example, figuring out how to increase by multiple orders of magnitude the amount of corn/rice/greens etc… that can be produced all while reducing the cost by orders of magnitude. With the actual cost going down on goods and services the government could levee a tax that takes the new incremental profit and redirects it to the UBI fund.

        Another idea I had is borrowed from a book called lockstep. Government could ban any company that produces goods and services for a third party from owning capital. instead capital always needs to be owned by the citizens in the labor market. Then companies would rent access to the capital from the labor market. I haven’t completely thought this particular idea through but it has a very nice side effect. First it throws accelerant on the invention market, as the way people earn a wage is by buying outright or buying shares in some automaton or manually operated equipment. As people will always want more money they will constantly be pushing for more ways of automating work. In such a system the UBI would be easier to implement, since the government would be allowed to buy outright or buy shares in equipment (automated or manually operated) then the money that equipment earns is then equally divided among the populace.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          Actually in both situations manufacturers would still have people to sell their products to. In the case where capital can only be owned by people in the labor market. Then the people who buy the capital is the labor market and their reasons for buying the capital is to increase the money they earn. Which is earned by renting access to the capital to businesses creating products and services for 3rd party consumption. in a way, we already have something similar to this in the car market. Where the manufacturer’s are forced to sell and lease the cars through a dealer. Its basically the same thing just without the ability for a company to buy the capital second hand from the labor market.

          As for the other case where we took our existing system and added a UBI to it. Demand for manufacturer goods would go down some but if people are being trained to always seek work via the culture and education system they would have to go through then the short term demand hit would be temporary.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    LENR will create enormous wealth for everybody but little or no jobs. Imagine an small LENR reactor that can give heat/elektricity/airco at will in a self sustaining mode. And add there the component of wireless power. LENR will for sure crash our current economic system..

    • psi2u2

      In the long run, yes. In the short run, it will create many jobs.

      • MikeP

        In the long run it should create many jobs as well. Standard of living goes up when energy costs go down. People with a higher standard of living want more things, not just survival, and these can be provided by other people who now have the freedom to design and build. People with a high standard of living can afford to protect the environment.

        • psi2u2

          This is possible, but some economists believe that with the rate of replacement of traditional jobs by robots and AI, we are looking at a future world where 40 hours of week for everyone is both unnecessary and impossible to sustain.

          • MikeP

            With more people having basic necessities, there will be more demand for products and services. In developed countries, the dominant cost of many services is the labor, not the parts or materials. In a developing or poor country the dominant cost is the materials, not the labor. The e-cat has the potential to make all parts of the world “affluent”, IMHO.

          • Fortyniner

            In the 60’s people used to imagine that this would mean people would work less and be paid the same, so they could lead lives of constructive leisure.

            Now we know that it just means that the rich get richer, and the mass of people either scrape by on minimum wage or live lives of misery on state benefits – if they are lucky enough to live in a country that provides them.

          • psi2u2

            I believe this is what must be changed. There will always be discrepancies in wealth and income. Trying to eliminate these has been proven impossible to sad effect. But there is a rational basis to insist that today’s present huge discrepancies between the poorest and the wealthiest are not conducive to the greater good – that we need a plentiful future for all.

          • Omega Z

            The Faster we go, the behinder we get.

            There is so much work to be done, just not enough money.
            Robots wont put everyone out of work. Only help us accomplish the work that needs done. The U.S. as well as most of the world is headed for a 1 person working out of 3. That’s due to the other 2 being to old, to crippled up, or to young to work. This is the precise reason Japan is developing robots. To prevent the aged from being neglected. This is also a concern of China. (Japan’s population started declining in 2010.)

            I’ve been aware the U.S. is nearing population equilibrium. I was surprised to find out just how close. Without immigration, the U.S. population growth is .2%. That would be 500 years to double population. Even with immigration, it was .7%.

            Actually, I’m not sure exactly where the .2% came from as the year given (2012?) Deaths out numbered births of natural Americans. Maybe they include those here legally with green cards. 🙂

            Anyway, without immigration, the U.S. Population would probably start decline by 2025 & even with, it may start to decline by 2030.
            Note: Africa is the only continent lagging. It’s birth rate is slowing, but not as fast as others. What I found interesting is the correlation between GDP & birth rates. The lower the GDP per capita, the higher the birth rate. It fits what many of us have said. Higher standards of living means less children per household.

            As to the work that needs done. 100 years of accumulated U.S. infrastructure is in need of replacement. Like 100 Trillion$ worth.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Creative distraction.

      Humans shouldn’t have to waste their 1 life working to exist – they should live in the moment and create.

    • Ged

      Thankfully, an increase in available cheap energy always creates a lot more jobs and wealth at the societal level. The converse is also true. Just look at countries by GDP and energy availability.

    • mcloki

      It will be a huge job creator. Just the distribution of the electrical grid will need hundreds of thousands of people maintaining and updating the e-cats. The availability of cheap electricity/heating will open up countless job opportunities as well as free up capitol to be spent on diversified projects across the whole of the economy.Think of it more as the US interstate system. Sure the jobs lasted for a few years of buildup and maintenance is ongoing, that’s the micro economy. but on the macro economy the interstate opened up the mid west and southwest for America to expand it’s economic base greatly. LENR would have that same effect. And if the reduced energy cost allows manufacturing to return to North America due to reduced cost. All the better.

    • Billy Jackson

      I think it will be disruptive but not crash the system. it may replace our current grid system but it wont be free. the e-cat will not be quite so simple as plug in and generate electricity. the service industry for installation, maintenance and renewals is going to be huge by any standard. you may not even see that big of a change in your electric bill for several years. I can see a few ways the energy companies can keep this under control.

      1. Legislation / Regulation requiring certified technicians for installation and maintenance. (you cant do it yourself without a license)

      2. Cellphone like contracts for your energy with different plans for different usages.
      3. Energy companies buy out all e-cats at first to sell to you like the phone/cable companies do.. they hook it up maintain it, you pay a “equipment fee” per month.
      4. Legislation (mainly over the use of the word nuclear), insurance requirements, fear of false safety issues can push the expense of an e-cat to the point where its not profitable on the small scale.

      We can set here and celebrate the success stories of LENR and the e-cat. but you can bet nearly everything you own that the hardest fight for this technology will not be its creation but its legislation of use as every oil and energy company out there will seek to bury this thing to save their profits and control of power.

      some people shake their head and go to hell with em ill build one myself.. no you wont. you may attempt to and get away with it for a while.. but the penalties for building a non regulated nuclear device in the US will land you in prison for a very long time. and dont think they wont use the fear of that word nuclear to sway public opinion. shortly after regulating the hell out of this thing will come the crack down on anyone building one themselves.

      will this come to pass? who knows.. its just an ugly possibility based on the probability from actions of our elected officials by their past actions.

      • mcdown

        Won’t stop this in China, India, South America or Africa…..

        • Fortyniner

          IMO people put too much faith in the ‘BRICS’ countries leading a ‘free for all’ charge in a cold fusion revolution. It won’t happen – the governments of these countries are just as dependent on energy revenues as Western governments, and will be just as keen to prevent their citizens gaining energy independence.

          • bachcole

            BRICS = “Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa” Given that India, China, and South Africa have already shown some interest, I believe that it would be interesting to see how much of the real revenues of each of these countries is the result of oil, coal, and gas. With Russia, I think that we already know the answer to that. I believe that Brazil will get on the LENR Juggernaut when they become aware of it; they already do ethanol to great effect (because they are on the Equator) and basically do not let the oil companies push them around.

      • Fortyniner

        I would see it more as an inevitability. There are simply no forces within society that can effectively oppose such a process of ‘capture’, which is the only way that vested interests can and will protect the status quo. We will get cold fusion, but on ‘their’ terms. It’s better than nothing.

    • bitplayer

      US Workforce Statistics – employment

      Oil and gas extraction, approx 215,000, less than .5%
      Utilities, approx 556,000, less than 1%

      Multiply by 3 or so to include the entire rest of the developed world


      But the impact on the developing world will be monumental. All those poor people with less energy cost, better health, more telecomm information, all without petroleum-based pollution and corruption. And the developed world with all the technology and toys they will want to buy.

      For a while…

  • MLTC

    I totally agree with the wise Rossi!

  • kdk

    Besides the increase in standard of living, it will be a gateway technology on par with or beyond the internet… It’s basically a meta-technology, and combined with others, will let people have more time for creativity and entrepreneurship, and thus more more (not less more) of the same… compound interest that works for everybody and all that jazz.

  • bachcole

    Funny. I didn’t see wits and social commentators in Rossi’s list. Dang!!!!

  • US_Citizen71

    I disagree, the oil speculators that are now abandoning oil futures were one of the big causes of the world recession by having a hand in everyone’s pockets. The increase in fuel costs caused the price of everything to increase and therefore caused a shrinkage in disposable income across the board which led to the failure of small business which caused unemployment. Which caused more disposable income to go away and around and around.

  • Billy Jackson

    agreed, i am mainly commenting about how it will be handled in America as i am an American 🙂 I will leave other countries to respond how they believe their country will adapt. I may occasionally offer an opinion as i see things on a global scale (such as oil, i think they will have their say so in more than just America) but the future is at best uncertain and we will see as the story unravels.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I find it hard to imagine that E-Cat or other LENR technology will create more jobs than they will uproot. As the bottom falls out of the fossil fuel economy, there will be millions out of work. I don’ know if E-Cats will make up the loss.

    • Heath

      A transformation of abundance, clean, cheap energy will likely cause all sorts of new industries to sprout up, IMO. Education is the difficult part.

    • Omega Z


      To start, The fossil fuel industry is already under attack by alternatives, That cost more I might add.

      However, Not nearly as many Jobs as you might think will be lost an far fewer then those that will be created.
      U.S. Oil & N-gas employs about 1.2 million people of which about 800K are minimum wage service center employees. You know. The ones that used to come out in the wind, rain, cold & heat to fill up your car & check the oil.

      Of the 400K that are skilled labor, Half will be needed as long as there is oil economically available. The other half easily absorbed in the LENR field.

      Coal in the U.S. is so automated & modernized that it employs few people today. Where once a 100 people dug coal, 2 or 3 people use a machine that takes out a 8′ x 6′ vein of coal like using a snow blower on your sidewalk & carried out by conveyor. Strip mines have shovels(Operated by 1 person) so large, a single scoop can fill several railroad cars.

      Deep mines have been troubled for a long time finding employees paying 75k to 100k a year. As good as these jobs pay, many of the younger generation don’t want them. To dirty. Many would rather flip burgers & complain they can’t earn a living & complain they have to deal with customers.

      Number of Miners in the U.S. peeked in the 1920 @785k yield 660M tons.
      Number of Miners in the U.S. in 2006 was 82k yield 1,162M tons

      Obviously, Countries like China employ substantially more.
      However this will all be a gradual transition allowing for new jobs to be created at an equal pace if not more so. Ultimately, it will create far more jobs then will be lost. Note most of the World is expecting a labor shortage in the near future.

      • Fortyniner

        Those figures seem rather low. Do they include distribution – the people building and maintaining fleets of supertankers, onshore receiving and storage facilities, road tankers and so on?

        At least there should be plenty of jobs for a while, decommissioning, dismantling and recycling much of this hardware.

        • Omega Z


          Your right. I didn’t count those building super tankers or storage, but nearly all them could easily transition to LENR jobs. Note: A Welder is a Welder. A Machinist is a Machinist. Lots of boilers, exchangers & such. Siemens finished their expansion in Charlotte N.C. 2 years ago & last I heard, still aren’t fully staffed due to the need to train personnel. Not enough skilled tradesmen.

          Also, the super tanker business is kind of in replacement of the old & is in a slump. There was already a slight glut & the U.S. receiving many fewer tankers hasn’t helped that business at all.

          I Also didn’t count those employed in the coal power plants which incidentally, Out number coal miners. However, I figure they will still be involved for many years considering E-cats are best suited at this time for similar plants. Just smaller & more distributed.

          I did find something of a surprise, Well, maybe I shouldn’t have been but, White collar out number blue collar at power plants like 60/40. More Chiefs then Indians.

    • psi2u2

      Yes, you have a good point about that. It is going to be pretty ugly on that side, if things continue at the present rate of development.

  • HAL9000

    There will be jobs; I will need dusting.

  • bitplayer

    Concur. As a side comment, I’m sure you recognize that it makes it difficult to communicate if one restricts oneself to fully qualified assertions, i.e. “without petroleum-based…corruption (notwithstanding that there will still be other types of corruption”). However, on that point, looking at Nigeria and Venezuela, petroleum-based corruption is a particularly egregious manifestation of the well-known “curse of natural resources”. I assert (attempting but no doubt failing to provide all qualifications) that corruption is largely dependent on (qualifier: among many other things) the mal-distribution of interpersonal power (i.e. if interpersonal power were distributed more appropriately, corruption would occur less). Interpersonal power is largely a function of capability (qualifier: broadly defined), capability depends in many ways on physical energy (qualifier: among many other things), and control of physical energy in developing countries is largely determined by who controls the flow of petroleum products, in, out and within (qualifier: among many other things). Working backwards, more LENR, less flow of petroleum, less corruption (with qualifications).

    Since there is no absolute truth or certainty (qualifier: based on Nagajuna’s Mulamadyhamakakarika, which no one has beaten yet; qualifier, to my knowledge), our main basis for making bets, i.e. committing our energy and time to a line of thought, is patterns and probabilities (unqualified, based that statement itself).

    “Because it costs a lot to win,
    and even more to lose,
    you and me gotta spend some time,
    wondering what to choose”.

  • mytakeis

    I am going to copy this entire complement of commentary and study it. Every note seems to resonate with me. So thank you all.

    • psi2u2

      I agree. A most excellent thread.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes this is wonderful but it seems to me (my own BS opinion) that we also have to keep the following in mind: In order to create jobs the nations of the world must reject “globalism”. The American colonies flourished when they broke away from British mercantilism (the old name for globalism/ “free” trade that allowed no manufacturing in the colonies) and protected the country’s economy with tariffs (and printed their own currency) so that countries couldn’t be played off against each other (the race to the bottom). Also, under that system the little food that the Irish had could be exported from Ireland during the potato famine (With a Pacific trade agreement could the wheat in Kansas be exported from the US when we have another great depression?). Viable nations (nations that have their own independent agricultural, mining and manufacturing bases) are firewalls against a global tyranny. The E-Cat could help nations become more

    • Donk970

      100% with you on this.

    • Omega Z

      In order to create jobs the nations of the world must reject “globalism”.

      No offense but, So Nations who have little in resources should perish.
      Note that the U.S. was only able to build the SR-71 due to materials that came from Russia tho they were exported to 3rd parties for other implied purposes.

      Free trade is meant to prevent monopolies that people go to war for. OPEC was created to be a monopoly of sorts, tho ultimately has for the most part failed. With out free trade many products including foods are not available or if they are, only seasonal. The U.S. is the world food basket. How many would die without food trade.

      American colonies flourished when they broke away from Britain & established their own free trade. If one proposes eliminating free trade, lets take it to the next level & restrict/eliminate trade between every state. By the way, not a novel thought.

      As to Jobs that have been exported from the U.S. & others as well, It was of Government Intent. To redistribute the wealth of the haves to the have not to improve the standard of living of other nations. All things factored in, most products can be manufactured & sold very competitively without cheap labor. Tax policy was intentionally set to prevent this.

      Tho I understand their intent, I disagree with there strategy. I’m a Bake more pies kind of person rather then redivide a single limited pie.

      OK, Excuse the the above. No offense meant.
      I realize there are issues of some under paid for the work performed & others overpaid & this should be addressed, But The real problem is the economic theories that all fail. They need revised. Time to take LENR into account.

      Consider, Money is just an IOU system that evolved from the days of bartering. A tool to simplify trade & increase commerce. It is basically a representation of labor performed in producing products, food or services of some sort of value to others.

      Consider all the people who have no jobs that would buy product that would provide those very jobs. It is the which come 1st. The Egg or the Chicken situation.

      What is needed is an injection of capitol which has value. There is no lack of work. EVERY Nation needs infrastructure built or like the U.S. has about 100 trillion$ of rebuilding to do.

      The U.S. printed & pumped over 5 trillion$ into the top echelons to heal the wealthy & the stock markets. A simple 1 Trillion$ pumped into infrastructure projects would have done the same. Except, it would have put people to work, building a High Value product that is sorely needed.

      This is not just printing money & more or less given like the Government did for the wealthy. It has value provided by labor. It doesn’t diminish the value of everyone else’s incomes.

      It is also not as simple as I’ve posted. $1 dollar goes a long way in GDP. Prior to the crash, The U.S. had less then 1 Trillion$ in cash flow, but changed hands over 15 times a year providing a 15 Trillion$ GDP. It would have to be tightly monitored & done over a period of time. To much money in an economy can be just as devastating as to little. Money supply is tricky & a means of pulling excess back out needs to be devised to keep it in balance.

      Note the Issue of doing as proposed has been problematic & the 1st & foremost has always been energy. When the World economy ramps up, So does energy costs due to limited supply even ignoring pollution. LENR being cheap, clean & plentiful will nullify that. However, other resources then come into play. Cradle to Cradle would be very important to avoid similar issues down the road.
      Maybe now, New Economic Theories can be entertained. LENR changes the dynamics. It would take time. The direction your heading is more important then how fast your going.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah Omega but it doesn’t seem like it’s the invisible hand of the market place that’s at work here. It’s more like an invisible finger. It seems to me that the nations who have plenty of resources are the very ones who are perishing.

        And the relationship the US had with the USSR is intriguing. For example, the US
        sold the USSR the grinders that they needed to make the miniaturised precision ball bearings for MIRV guidance systems.

        • Omega Z

          I agree, the public image is different then what goes on behind the scenes. It’s like 2 different worlds.

          “It seems to me that the nations who have plenty of resources are the very ones who are perishing.”

          Again, I agree, As I try to explain. It is intentional. There are those in power who believe the west have to much & are redistributing the wealth using different mechanisms. 100’s of Billions from the U.S. to buy oil has been intentional. This all started at the end of WW II.

          Products made by hand in China that automated systems have been able to do cheaper from the beginning. Thus Tax policies are used to make that none economical.

          Note the U.N. as of the present is pushing the developed countries to meet their target of 100 Billion$ a year given to the undeveloped by 2020 & to double that within a few years after.

          As I said, I don’t agree with their strategy. I prefer to bake more pies. Not infinitely divide the 1 we have.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Who says the nation need much of any natural resources? Japan quite much living on a rock, but yet they mastered the building of cars.

        The problem with free trade is you give up sovereign rights. We might NOT want to import cars. We simple want to HAVE the right to make that choice. Might be good choice, might be bad choice. But it should be the choice of that nation.

        However, if we allow someone to close down our auto plant and then simply import those cars from some place else? We want and need the right to say no!

        If that country with little resources wants to build cars, then clearly as Japan shows, this is possible.

        However, MY COUNTRY and MY people Still need to retrain the right to decide if we going to import your cars. With free trade, that decision is taken away from the people, given to INTERNAL law and courts. It goes “beyond” the courts and voting rights. Thus the country when accepting free trade looses their sovereign right to decide if we want to import those cars or not (it becomes international law – above that of the country law or choice).

        Maybe we do want to import cars, maybe we don’t. Japan for years did not want to purchase USA computers and satellites because they wanted to funnel BILLIONS into their own industry. Overall this was a great choice on their part – as now they can build satellites. So they restricted importing of such products.

        The idea that we close down our Auto industry and have huge layoffs because someone can build a car for $5 cheaper is insane. As a nation, you need to decide on a case by case bases, and strive towards balanced trade.

        So if Japan wants to sell cars here, then you better purchase our coal from the USA as opposed to Australia, or we not let you import those cars. We ran things this way for 100+ years and it worked great. Only until free trade came along did we decimate and LOSE MOST of the middle class. This experiment has failed big time.

        And this idea of “redistribution” wealth is a silly socialist concept. Because Japan now makes cars does not mean that someone in the USA or Africa goes without a car because they not making cars?

        I can for a summer job find an old rusted out car in some old barn. Now I spend the whole year restoring that car. Now I have this amazing valuable car that everyone says WOW! – Nice car!

        The fact that I created the car does NOT mean someone else goes without a car. Be cars, cows, wealth or anything a humans can create with their hands, this silly “socialized” idea that we now must re-distribute what the person created is silly.
        Each person, and each nation can CREATE much value. A socialist ONLY sees the RESULTS OF THOSE efforts and wants to REDISTRIBUTE these efforts! They don’t think about the creating process! They are like a bunch of locusts eating wheat, but never figure out how to grow that wheat!

        Once Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe. Under Socialist rule (during the Iron Curtain days), they went hungry! Farmers went home at 5 pm. In the USA they put lights on their tractors and worked late into the night plowing their fields. The result was a huge bread basket for the USA. That breadbasket did not mean the Ukraine people could not do the same nor did us working here result in their poverty. In fact Ukraine once WAS a huge food producing nation!

        So Japan is quite much living on a rock, and they can build great cars. Wealth creating is a VERY different process then wealth redistribution. Those who don’t run business have failed to gasp this difference! (and fall victim to socialist thinking and propaganda)

        Because I create wealth does not mean you go without or I taken it from you! I can grow cows to make more juicy bungers for you, or restore that junked car to amazing value – such actions on my part don’t mean that someone else goes without a car, or burgers.

        This is exactly the whole idea wrong with the greens and using less energy. As I stated, we need to INCREASE the per caption energy use, not decrease it! It allows more wealth creating – that’s why the e-cat is so important!

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada
        [email protected]

  • Omega Z

    Yep, they have less regulations. They don’t need them. Do something that should harm someone else they just start cutting things of or worse. You need to take notice of the short comings. The cost of all the apparatus too make them usful plus a power source to control it all. These countries will slowly build small scale grids. No different then Fossil plants.

  • Fortyniner

    Your sympathy for those less fortunate than yourself is heartwarming. I think we see another glimpse of the real person behind the frequently ‘spiritual’ comments.

  • Omega Z

    The biggest problem is they have turned the stock market into a casino. Trading dollars for dollars to make money(Speculating) & this does not create jobs. Most of it is vapor dollars & another down turn can make it vaporize again. Brick & mortar tends to last much longer.

    They trade more stock at the starting bell today then they traded all day long in the 80’s. In the 80’s, it was still investing. Today is all about speculating. Stocks are way over valued today by at least 50%.

  • Kenneth Brunstein

    I would’nt bet on saving money. I would bet on changing the world and making it cleaner.