The Impact of Oil Prices on LENR

It’s almost impossible not to notice the currently ongoing precipitous drop in oil prices. Headlines daily are talk about the effect of oil’s drop on consumer spending, the stock market, Russia, North American oil production, OPEC countries, etc. Even if you don’t watch the news, the signs we see at our local filling stations tell us that something dramatic is going on.

Whether the potential of LENR has anything to do with the has been debated here and elsewhere before — but that is not my focus here. I am wondering if the emergence of LENR as an alternative energy technology could be hindered if fossil fuel prices are low.

Andrea Rossi was asked on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about this today:

Dear Andrea,
How do you think, if the oil prices will continue to fall as fast as they do, will your technology still be competitive when it is finally released, considering the much cheaper oil, gas, and electricity and the high price of 1MW plant 1.5M USD?

***********************

Andrea Rossi
December 16th, 2014 at 7:24 AM
Dima Redko:
The history of oil prices is a roller coaster…I have not the cristal ball.
The price of the E-Cat will be adjusted to the market mas mass production, in due time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

A very important question is going to be — how much does an E-Cat plant cost? As mentioned by Dima Redko the price tag Andrea Rossi has attached to an old-style 1 MW E-Cat plant is $1.5 million. But we have to remember that this was for a basically hand-made plant, before Industrial Heat took the reins of the E-Cat. And I am not sure if Rossi ever sold a plant at that price. In any case, in his reply above, it seems that Rossi expects that price of an E-Cat to be adjusted downwards when IH starts to mass produce these plants.

But even if the cost of an E-Cat plant is cut in half, or even a fourth — could an E-Cat industrial heating plant be competitive with a natural gas, or oil heating system if fossil fuel prices remain low? How much flexibility will Industrial Heat in pricing their plants in order to compete with established manufacturers?

In terms of the cost of fuel, I don’t think there is any likelihood that oil or gas will be cheaper than a small charge of nickel powder with some other additives that lasts for six months or more. But there is more to an E-Cat plant than the fuel and the reactors. Rossi has said that the bulk of the E-Cat plant is made up of heat exchange systems along with the computerized control systems.

At this point, there is a great deal we don’t know about the E-Cat and Industrial Heat’s business plans — so we can only speculate about a lot of this. But I do think that in general terms, when energy prices have fallen so far there will be a diminished incentive for most businesses to start shopping around for alternative energy systems; there would have to be a clear financial advantage for making the switch.

Of course, as Rossi mentions above, the energy markets have been tremendously volatile over the years, so we may not be in for a prolonged era of cheap fossil fuels, but the current trends do set up a headwind that LENR and other alternative energy sources will need to fight against in their efforts to be competitive.

  • Billy Jackson

    Oil may drop and have a faster effect at the pump but it will take longer for the same effect to reach energy generating companies who supply our electricity. a COP of 3 is still near 3 times out what you put in. as this scales the economy of savings and efficiencies gets higher thus more savings. Throw in the supposed self sustaining mode with no input and well… game over.

    Right now LENR is in its Infancy trying to find who and what it is. We have a long road ahead of us before OIL becomes history as a energy generating commodity. Who knows it may not even be IH/Rossi that gives us the most efficient version of an E-Cat who knows what blinders they have built up that will later be solved by some young scientist or engineer who’s told he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.. that what he’s trying to achieve.. is impossible.

    • “COP of 3 is still near 3 times out what you put in.” Good point Billy.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        COP 3 means actually COP 12 with 75% SSM, provided that the input of the control system is negligible and the output power remains constant.

    • bkrharold

      That is a very good point. There is much serious scientific research to be done, before we have a clear understanding of LENR. Only after that work has been done, will it be possible to optimize the process for maximum efficiency. IH and Brillouin are doing the best they can working with blinders on. They are very brave.
      In the past few years there have been tremendous advances in the field of materials science. They are now using supercomputers to design materials with very specific properties, such as catalysts made from a mixture of cheaper metals in precise proportions, to substitute for platinum, a very expensive metal. Once the mechanism of LENR is discovered, it will be possible to focus on producing a device which can generate the maximum amount of energy efficiently and safely. LENR devices will be producing Gigawatts rather than Megawatts.

  • Billy Jackson

    Oil may drop and have a faster effect at the pump but it will take longer for the same effect to reach energy generating companies who supply our electricity. a COP of 3 is still near 3 times out what you put in. as this scales the economy of savings and efficiencies gets higher thus more savings. Throw in the supposed self sustaining mode with no input and well… game over.

    Right now LENR is in its Infancy trying to find who and what it is. We have a long road ahead of us before OIL becomes history as a energy generating commodity. Who knows it may not even be IH/Rossi that gives us the most efficient version of an E-Cat you never know what blinders they have built up that will later be solved by some young scientist or engineer who’s told he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.. that what he’s trying to achieve.. is impossible.

    • “COP of 3 is still near 3 times out what you put in.” Good point Billy.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        COP 3 means actually COP 12 with 75% SSM, provided that the input of the control system is negligible and the output power remains constant.

    • bkrharold

      That is a very good point. There is much serious scientific research to be done, before we have a clear understanding of LENR. Only after that, will it be possible to optimize the process for maximum efficiency. IH and Brillouin are doing the best they can working with blinders on. They are very brave.
      In the past few years there have been tremendous advances in the field of materials science. They are now using supercomputers to design materials with very specific properties, such as catalysts made from a mixture of cheaper metals in precise proportions, to substitute for platinum, a very expensive metal. Once the mechanism of LENR is discovered, it will be possible to focus on producing a device which can generate the maximum amount of energy efficiently and safely from LENR. These devices will produce Gigawatts rather than Megawatts.

  • sc1ttl

    A few things. Oil drives transportation. Electricity powers industry. Until recently, energy has been a commodity. Solar, distributed generation and perhaps LENR will make it a technology. Like the CEO of Next Era said. Can you imagine basing a billion dollar inductry on wooden poles stuck in the ground? Solar will be on par with coal in TWO YEARS. If LENR is not marketable at this juncture, technology will drive its adaptation or its obsolescence

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Solar and wind will never be on a par with coal unless a low cost fully effective energy storage system is developed (dispatch problem). Even then, solar and wind are only good in limited regions where they are plentiful, and require large areas of land for large scale generation. However, it is natural gas, not coal that will give long term competition to LENR due to it’s clean burning and availability, and potential for low cost. This is especially true since a gas fired electric generation system for individual homes has been developed that seems to be cost effective and efficient (this eliminates the need for power lines, only gas pipelines, which are subsurface).

      • Ged

        Bingo. But gas has it’s own limitations (supply lines and maintenance, utility supplier) that LENR can overcome. We’ll have to see how cheap LENR can be, as that’ll determined a lot. Both techs may be able to survive together, but they are in direct competition in the end.

        • Billy Jackson

          Solar potentially will become effective when we can put solar collectors in orbit and beam energy down to the stations that need it for distribution. until then it will suffer from the problems you listed and more..

          • Ged

            Just remember, to paraphrase a quote I ran into once, the only difference between an orbital solar collector and a direct energy beam weapon is targeting.

          • Billy Jackson

            agreed. but at some point we will hopefully put the wars of territorial aggression away and embrace a world of abundance. i don’t see it happening without a fight as those in power will fight to stay in control but its potential is there we just have to grow up as a species first.

          • LilyLover

            To fight and resist in one ineffective way against which brutal power or money-power can be used. But take a 90 degree turn, redefine humanity and know one knows how to resist for there is nothing to resist. In this new direction – behave morally, reward the best, stay unafraid, and be abundant in love and matter. That is effective way.

          • LilyLover

            Exactly why it can be a really fast development. Militaries would claim to develop it for the benefit of mankind and then invent scenarios in which its use will be justified and pat itself on the back once they have shown acumen to use it “creatively”! Then they will be sorry and hope that the threat has perpetuated existence of fiat currencies a little further.

          • Omega Z

            “beam energy down” & hope it doesn’t get misdirected.
            We already have to be careful of lightning.

      • mcloki

        The renewable energy Storage problem is being looked at by everyone and their dog. So solutions will be forthcoming in the next few years. Large mega storage solutions. Musk will most likely have a home storage solution soon as well.There’s too much money to be made. Electricity is portable enough. Where electricity once flowed down from Quebec to the US. those same lines can carry power from Nevada and New Mexico north and west to California.

      • Daniel Maris

        A rather study-your-shoes approach I think. Look at the horizon: Elon Musk is on the case, as regards energy storage. The cost of PV continues to reduce.

        The potential of solar isn’t limited to sub-tropical desert areas. Germany already produces about 6% of its electricity from solar. Basically they have gone from 0-6% in 10 years.

        There are few parts of the world that can’t benefit from wind energy.

        You don’t need to achieve 100% energy storage coverage. With continental size grids and with incentives to reduce energy use at pinch points, we could probably get by with 30-40% storage.

        You can switch a lot of your baseload from hydro to other renewables.

        If you are a sea-bordering nation, you can build huge hydro storage facilities along your coast.

    • Ged

      That’s a very optimistic vision of solar, but unfortunately it’s not true. Most latitudes, where the majority of human populations live, don’t have year round the full sun light hours (i.e. no cloud cover), or incidence (for how long the sunlight is direct), for it to be a useful power source. Solar is usually most expensive per kW, takes up far more surface area of the Earth per kW than any other tech, and worst yet, it is intermittent. That means, solar can never be used as a main power grid supplier, only ever a supplement. There are too many critical industries (e.g. water utilities, hospitals) that require a very stable power supply which solar will never meet.

      It’s a nice pipe dream, but not reality. This is part of why places like Spain gave up their aggressive solar push after it started sinking the economy, and part of why so many solar companies have gone out of business. It’s nice for personal houses in some places (and even then solar alone doesn’t usually fully free someone from the grid), but not for societal level needs.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        you need to change where you get your information about solar power.

        • Ged

          http://www.srpnet.com/environment/earthwise/solar/RSEcostperwatt.aspx

          Solar costs, without tax payer money rebating, are around $4 a watt, or $2.5 per watt after getting tax incentives in the highest rebate states and counties. Both coal and wind are around $2 per watt. Note, this is a generous analysis, and doesn’t factor in solar pannel life span (they degrade). Here is another analysis: http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html .

          As for area usage: http://www.terrawatts.com/PV-production.html note it would take 9.5 thousand square miles of panels to meet US energy demand, if the sun never set and was shining at the optimal angle, and assumes no further growth in demand.

          More real world, practical info http://www.solar-estimate.org/?page=solar-calculations

          • LilyLover

            The people who use the term taxpayer to justify anything, seriously lack the worldview of what money is. Especially, in the Solar and scientific arena.

          • Ged

            I don’t see how this comment pertains to mine at all. Taxpayer funding is funding that comes from taxes garnered from wages or product purchases–it is money that comes from everyone collectively after being removed from everyone collectively. Subsidies from taxpayers mean it’s not your own money alone being used to pay for your own personal purchase (a benefit that is to you personally), but money out of the pocket of everyone else too. It is not something to be cavalier about.

          • LilyLover

            This is the exact proof of the Matrix – the way it was designed – to make learned people think in a predictable way – the basic definition of human “condition” – the reinforced del u sions – the perfect moral inertial weight that keeps society from progress. This comment is the essence of mass-media’s-hypnotic-success. To open the eyes of people like you is what we call awakening. It’s not the stupid we have to cure, or the evil we have to eradicate, it’s the misguided “moral” people that are more responsible for society to be in the dark ages.
            Again, I would have accused you of being a tr oall, but I know you from a long list of comments – your heart is in the right place but your mind is in the prison. Please, read your comment very well, and think about it – is there nothing wrong with it? Not the tone or the grammar or the intent, the money paradigm – the imagined truths. Please Ged please – wake up.

        • jousterusa

          An awful lot depends on whether Rossi designs a home E-Cat that can replace our connections to the grid. If he does, he will be rich beyond imagining and consumers will be more affluent than ever. If not, the E-Cat will remain a thing primarily of interest to manufacturers and other juice-intensive industrial customers. Someone will fill the residential vaccuum – Brillouin, perhaps, or BlackLight Power – and interest in the E-Cat will quickly fade. Meanwhile. Industrial Heat LLC feels to me like a man who walks around afraid of stepping on his own toes. They need to get out of Raleigh and into New York.

          • psi2u2

            I doubt Rossi has given up the idea of the home devices. I think he just a good lesson in how to actually achieve that end goal. I bet he’s right that only significant service in industry can pave the way to home units. Until that has happened, at least in the US, home units will not be approved because of the “nuclear” in “N.” But, by all means, let’s have multiple companies – there will be, it seems, many niches.

      • LilyLover

        Solar out of business, is a political move rather than natural. Money in terms of bank fiat has nothing to do with solar viability. One country vs Sahara & Floting Solar in Pacific can suffice the World need. Your assumption that World will never collaborate together, is false. My generation will show you oldies that we can unite, if not for altruistic purposes, at least to produce consumable-energy together.

        • Ged

          Sorry, but I’m not an “oldie”. And no, it isn’t political. Governments around the world have been pumping billions into solar and wind, with extreme subsidies, but they haven’t taken off because they are not economically viable compared to alternatives. Money has everything to do with it: solar and wind are not profitable and rarely succeed at reaching their advertised capacity, leaving power grids vulnerable (see: UK).

          As nice an idea as a floating solar power platform sounds, there are serious reality issues: 1) high seas and storms unabated by landforms (extreme mechanical stress), 2) wire connections that can support power and survive high strain of sea conditions, 3) salt water corrosion, 4) seas have high water vapor and cloud cover, especially in the tropical latitudes that have the highest solar incidence (afternoon thunderstorms), 5) large size/number of floating platforms needed to generate useful amounts of energy is a serious engineering issue for water (see point 1), 6) low life span of panels coupled with extreme cost and difficulty in maintenance/replacement, 7) potentially high toxicity of panel/battery materials to aquatic life, particularly accentuated by salt water.

          Maybe one day our technology will be both good enough and economical enough for such considerations, but we aren’t remotely at that point right now. And there are much more viable technologies both at the moment and on the horizon that make such ideas not competitive as they currently stand.

          • LilyLover

            I have to agree that I do not like solar on seabed myself for the current level of solar development. My point remains – more with opposite-to-sun continents co-producing electricity. I also concur that alternatives like BLP-CIHT, SHT??, and our beloved E-Cat are far more viable.
            My point was – in the absence of all of these nicer alternatives, Solar is still enough, without batteries or ultracapacitors on their own, if needs come to that. And when you clump together “solar” with “wind”, you give away your proclivity to gull e bility. And seriously, “economical viability” is not a real constraint to solar, it’s a made-up scenario by the people who need to preserve their bank fiat currency. Or perhaps, you view economic viability as an aesthetic concept. Where I see science, you see opinion. When purchasing an art, only opinion matters. I agree.

          • Omega Z

            HEY, Don’t be posting SHT. Oh Sorry. 🙂

        • Omega Z

          The 2 largest Solar panel manufactures in the World have went into bankruptcy. Being bailed out by the state & will have to charge more in the Future.(Mandated by Beijing)

          What is not told is cheaper panels are the product of sold, excess panels in warehouses sold below cost. Pennies on the dollar… But it makes for good sound bites & propaganda as in Solar is getting cheaper…

  • sc1ttl

    A few things. Oil drives transportation. Electricity powers industry. Until recently, energy has been a commodity. Solar, distributed generation and perhaps LENR will make it a technology. Like the CEO of Next Era said. Can you imagine basing a billion dollar inductry on wooden poles stuck in the ground? Solar will be on par with coal in TWO YEARS. If LENR is not marketable at this juncture, technology will drive its adaptation or its obsolescence

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Solar and wind will never be on a par with coal unless a low cost fully effective energy storage system is developed (dispatch problem). Even then, solar and wind are only good in limited regions where they are plentiful, and require large areas of land for large scale generation. However, it is natural gas, not coal that will give long term competition to LENR due to it’s clean burning and availability, and potential for low cost. This is especially true since a gas fired electric generation system for individual homes has been developed that seems to be cost effective and efficient (this eliminates the need for power lines, only gas pipelines, which are subsurface).

      • Ged

        Bingo. But gas has it’s own limitations (supply lines and maintenance, utility supplier) that LENR can overcome. We’ll have to see how cheap LENR can be, as that’ll determined a lot. Both techs may be able to survive together, but they are in direct competition in the end.

        • Billy Jackson

          Solar potentially will become effective when we can put solar collectors in orbit and beam energy down to the stations that need it for distribution. until then it will suffer from the problems you listed and more..

          • Ged

            Just remember, to paraphrase a quote I ran into once, the only difference between an orbital solar collector and a direct energy beam weapon is targeting.

          • Billy Jackson

            agreed. but at some point we will hopefully put the wars of territorial aggression away and embrace a world of abundance. i don’t see it happening without a fight as those in power will fight to stay in control but its potential is there we just have to grow up as a species first.

          • LilyLover

            To fight and resist in one ineffective way against which brutal power or money-power can be used. But take a 90 degree turn, redefine humanity and know one knows how to resist for there is nothing to resist. In this new direction – behave morally, reward the best, stay unafraid, and be abundant in love and matter. That is effective way.

          • LilyLover

            Exactly why it can be a really fast development. Militaries would claim to develop it for the benefit of mankind and then invent scenarios in which its use will be justified and pat itself on the back once they have shown acumen to use it “creatively”! Then they will be sorry and hope that the threat has perpetuated existence of fiat currencies a little further.

          • Omega Z

            “beam energy down” & hope it doesn’t get misdirected.
            We already have to be careful of lightning.

      • mcloki

        The renewable energy Storage problem is being looked at by everyone and their dog. So solutions will be forthcoming in the next few years. Large mega storage solutions. Musk will most likely have a home storage solution soon as well.There’s too much money to be made. Electricity is portable enough. Where electricity once flowed down from Quebec to the US. those same lines can carry power from Nevada and New Mexico north and west to California.

    • Ged

      That’s a very optimistic vision of solar, but unfortunately it’s not true. Most latitudes, where the majority of human populations live, don’t have year round the full sun light hours (i.e. no cloud cover), or incidence (for how long the sunlight is direct), for it to be a useful power source. Solar is usually most expensive per kW, takes up far more surface area of the Earth per kW than any other tech, and worst yet, it is intermittent. That means, solar can never be used as a main power grid supplier, only ever a supplement. There are too many critical industries (e.g. water utilities, hospitals) that require a very stable power supply which solar will never meet.

      It’s a nice pipe dream, but not reality. This is part of why places like Spain gave up their aggressive solar push after it started sinking the economy, and part of why so many solar companies have gone out of business. It’s nice for personal houses in some places (and even then solar alone doesn’t usually fully free someone from the grid), but not for societal level needs.

      • you need to change where you get your information about solar power.

        • Ged

          http://www.srpnet.com/environment/earthwise/solar/RSEcostperwatt.aspx

          Solar costs, without tax payer money rebating, are around $4 a watt, or $2.5 per watt after getting tax incentives in the highest rebate states and counties. Both coal and wind are around $2 per watt. Note, this is a generous analysis, and doesn’t factor in solar pannel life span (they degrade). Here is another analysis: http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html .

          As for area usage: http://www.terrawatts.com/PV-production.html note it would take 9.5 thousand square miles of panels to meet US energy demand, if the sun never set and was shining at the optimal angle, and assumes no further growth in demand.

          More real world, practical info http://www.solar-estimate.org/?page=solar-calculations

          • LilyLover

            The people who use the term taxpayer to justify anything, seriously lack the worldview of what money is. Especially, in the Solar and scientific arena.

          • Ged

            I don’t see how this comment pertains to mine at all. Taxpayer funding is funding that comes from taxes garnered from wages or product purchases–it is money that comes from everyone collectively after being removed from everyone collectively. Subsidies from taxpayers mean it’s not your own money alone being used to pay for your own personal purchase (a benefit that is to you personally), but money out of the pocket of everyone else too. It is not something to be cavalier about.

          • LilyLover

            This is the exact proof of the Matrix – the way it was designed – to make learned people think in a predictable way – the basic definition of human “condition” – the reinforced del u sions – the perfect moral inertial weight that keeps society from progress. This comment is the essence of mass-media’s-hypnotic-success. To open the eyes of people like you is what we call awakening. It’s not the stupid we have to cure, or the evil we have to eradicate, it’s the misguided “moral” people that are more responsible for society to be in the dark ages.
            Again, I would have accused you of being a tr oall, but I know you from a long list of comments – your heart is in the right place but your mind is in the prison. Please, read your comment very well, and think about it – is there nothing wrong with it? Not the tone or the grammar or the intent, the money paradigm – the imagined truths. Please Ged please – wake up.

      • LilyLover

        Solar out of business, is a political move rather than natural. Money in terms of bank fiat has nothing to do with solar viability. One country vs Sahara & Floting Solar in Pacific can suffice the World need. Your assumption that World will never collaborate together, is false. My generation will show you oldies that we can unite, if not for altruistic purposes, at least to produce consumable-energy together.

        • Ged

          Sorry, but I’m not an “oldie”. And no, it isn’t political. Governments around the world have been pumping billions into solar and wind, with extreme subsidies, but they haven’t taken off because they are not economically viable compared to alternatives. Money has everything to do with it: solar and wind are not profitable and rarely succeed at reaching their advertised capacity, leaving power grids vulnerable (see: UK).

          As nice an idea as a floating solar power platform sounds, there are serious reality issues: 1) high seas and storms unabated by landforms (extreme mechanical stress), 2) wire connections that can support power and survive high strain of sea conditions, 3) salt water corrosion, 4) seas have high water vapor and cloud cover, especially in the tropical latitudes that have the highest solar incidence (afternoon thunderstorms), 5) large size/number of floating platforms needed to generate useful amounts of energy is a serious engineering issue for water (see point 1), 6) low life span of panels coupled with extreme cost and difficulty in maintenance/replacement, 7) potentially high toxicity of panel/battery materials to aquatic life, particularly accentuated by salt water.

          Maybe one day our technology will be both good enough and economical enough for such considerations, but we aren’t remotely at that point right now. And there are much more viable technologies both at the moment and on the horizon that make such ideas not competitive as they currently stand.

          • LilyLover

            I have to agree that I do not like solar on seabed myself for the current level of solar development. My point remains – more with opposite-to-sun continents co-producing electricity. I also concur that alternatives like BLP-CIHT, SHT??, and our beloved E-Cat are far more viable.
            My point was – in the absence of all of these nicer alternatives, Solar is still enough, without batteries or ultracapacitors on their own, if needs come to that. And when you clump together “solar” with “wind”, you give away your proclivity to gull e bility. And seriously, “economical viability” is not a real constraint to solar, it’s a made-up scenario by the people who need to preserve their bank fiat currency. Or perhaps, you view economic viability as an aesthetic concept. Where I see science, you see opinion. When purchasing an art, only opinion matters. I agree.

          • Omega Z

            HEY, Don’t be posting SHT. Oh Sorry. 🙂

        • Omega Z

          The 2 largest Solar panel manufactures in the World have went into bankruptcy. Being bailed out by the state & will have to charge more in the Future.(Mandated by Beijing)

          What is not told is cheaper panels are the product of sold, excess panels in warehouses sold below cost. Pennies on the dollar… But it makes for good sound bites & propaganda as in Solar is getting cheaper…

  • Nicola

    Andrea Rossi said in the last interview that the electrical energy generated by an industrial E-cat will be at least three times cheaper than oil/carbon generated. Since at the time of the interview oil prices were $60, my first guess is that for oil to be competitive with the E-cat, it should fall below $15-$20 a barrel. Probabilities for such an outcome are very low, even if Saudi Arabia starts selling every drop of oil in their country. Even if oil and E-cat would cost moreorless the same, the E-cat energy will be preferred by governments and multinationals alike because it doesn’t pollute and it doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect.

    • The UK government has closed down perfectly good coal and oil power stations, and even some gas fired ones, nominally in order to reduce CO2 ’emissions’ but in reality to reduce capacity and so create a ‘need’ for new nuclear generators. They have succeeded to the extent that if this winter is a really cold one, and/or there are a few unscheduled shut-downs of power stations, there may not be enough spare generation capacity to meet demand.

      Because of all the rhetoric about ‘clean’ nuclear as the answer to ‘climate change’, and the vast consumer and taxpayer subsidies they have put in place to fund this dangerous dinosaur, they may be forced to simulate equal enthusiasm for cold fusion when it becomes available. But only if the story breaks in the media in the next six months or so, when the UK will be committed to funding the construction of Hinkley Point C and shortly after, a raft of other new nuclear power stations.

    • Brokeeper

      In the US $11.40 per barrel is the break even point to what it costs to refine gasoline. So $20.00 per barrel leaves little profit margin, if any, after delivery, middleman, retail, marketing, taxes etc.

    • LilyLover

      Funny thing: Instead of Andrea Rossi, I read “Nokola Tesla said in the…”, so, looks like in my subconscious, Rossi has taken the place of Tesla.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The Cost of LENR is little more than the cost of the equipment to produce it, and the equipment is relatively simple and inexpensive to manufacture. While the LENR reaction may be complex, the devices to produce it are not. LENR will always have a superior competitive advantage.

    • Donk970

      I agree, the costs of heat exchangers, turbines etc. in a power plant will be about the same regardless of the heat source. Ultimately it gets down to the costs of manufacturing/refueling the reactor cores which will make E-Cat far cheaper. The catch, of course, will be the banks. The big banks are willing to lend billions to build new power plants of a type that has been built before because it’s low risk. These guys know, almost to the penny (an exaggeration :-), how much it will cost to build a coal, oil, gas or even nuclear fission power plant and they know that they will get the money back with interest. An E-Cat power plant is a complete unknown and therefor high risk and the modern banker is highly risk averse. This is why I am convinced that this will happen in China and India first and then, eventually, when the big oil, coal and gas interests can no longer get legislation passed to prevent LENR from coming to America we will see it here.

      • Not nuclear fission plant – the estimated cost of the Hinkley C project in the UK has risen from the original £10,000,000,000, through £16,000,000,000 a year ago to £25,000,000,000 now, with no guarantee that it won’t rise further. I guess that’s why the banks won’t touch the project with a bargepole, and the funding will come from foreign investors, with the risk element and overrun costs held by the UK treasury, i.e., the taxpayer.

        http://www.scottishenergynews.com/platform/austria-to-challenge-uk-government-nuclear-subsidies-in-european-court/

        • psi2u2

          One problem with conventional fission is that the operational units cannot be mass-manufactured; each one has to be individually crafted, and since they are gigantic and very risky structures, essentially built by governments, construction costs tend to skyrocket. And then earthquake strikes and they still weren’t built to acceptable safety standards. Fission has been a Faustian bargain. Let us hope it is completely dead soon.

          • Omega Z

            I’ll build it for 5 Billion$. Wait…What?
            The Government is paying for it.
            I meant 25 Billion$. That 1st quote was a Typo…

          • $25B would still mean a saving to the UK taxpayer of 30% or so – go for it! Apply to Dave, (behind the bike shed), 10 Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA, and slip him a drink (used notes only, bring a wheelbarrow).

            On second thoughts – I’ll do it for $24B…..

        • malkom700

          The economic benefits of introducing technology LENR are essential but we must not forget that short-term considerations may be important. Climate change requires immediate introduction LENR regardless of the costs. We can not forget the uneven distribution of fossil fuels, which act like aggressiveness of some states.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Terrible, Terrible project – the government of the UK would be better off subsidising everyone to get solar.

      • Omega Z

        A 2 billion$ power plant is still a 2 Billion$ power plant. Only the Fuel costs will be cheaper.

    • bkrharold

      Agreed, also there is no need to replace existing power stations, they can be retrofitted. A LENR boiler can be used to replace the current fossil fuel driven steam generator as a plug in replacement.
      As LENR is adopted more widely by small businesses, and even domestic users, there will be less demand on the grid, and less need for expensive centralized power generating facilities.

  • Fortyniner

    The UK government has closed down perfectly good coal and oil power stations, and even some gas fired ones, nominally in order to reduce CO2 ’emissions’ but in reality to reduce capacity and so create a ‘need’ for new nuclear generators. They have succeeded to the extent that if this winter is a really cold one, there may not be enough spare generation capacity to meet demand.

    Because of all the rhetoric about ‘clean’ nuclear as the answer to ‘climate change’, and the vast consumer and taxpayer subsidies they have put in place to fund this dangerous dinosaur, they may be forced to simulate equal enthusiasm for cold fusion when it becomes available. Only if the story breaks in the media in the next six months or so, when the UK will be committed to funding the construction of Hinkley Point C and shortly after, a raft of other new nuclear power stations.

  • Stefenski

    Unfortunately, the drop in oil and gas prices only means increased profit for the Energy utility companies. Here in the UK the public are continually being shafted by the energy providers. Ofgem, the ‘regulator’ are worse than useless..

    ..roll on the E-cat I say.

    • bkrharold

      I’m sorry to hear that. As an expat Brit, I would love to see Britain leading the way in alternative energy. I have read of some promising developments with wind and solar power, but I was rather shocked to see that they have recently allowed fracking. This is a tremendous mistake that people will come to regret.

  • BroKeeper

    $11.40 per barrel is the break even point to what it costs to refine gasoline. So $20.00 per barrel leaves little profit margin, if any, after delivery, middleman, retail, advertising, etc.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is a strategy play by the big producers in OPEC. It will have these effects

    Crush Shale Gas/liquids in the states and beyond

    At todays oil price, pretty much every US shale play costs more to extract than the price of the oil recovered – and that does not take into consideration any pollution risks or the incredible debt mountain that it is built on. It will additionally crush those that bought the debt bonds causing all kinds of systemic failures – that is one reason it was so important for the big investment banks to get the Comnibus passed last week – to ensure the US taxpayer was on the hook for the ensuing bailout.

    This may well play into big oils hands as all of the smaller shale companies may go bankrupt, leaving the option to re-negotiate their agreements with all the landowners that risked their local environment in perpetuity for a fast buck in the “here and now”. The net result may be that they loose much of that fast buck – but still have all the risks when the price inevitably goes up again.

    The net result will be that the UK, Europe, China etc – may all like to re-visit the wisdom of getting oil and gas from Shale. Even traditional oil investment may collapse as the FT reports <$60 risks $1tn of investment (oh if only 1/10th of 1% of that could be invested in LENR!)

    "Oil price fall threatens $1tn of projects" do google search and hit link to get FT article

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b3d67518-845f-11e4-bae9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3M4r5GvLP

    Little effect on the costs of Russian Oil production

    Despite what the media would have us believe, Russia is MUCH less at risk from this action. The costs of Russian oil production are denominated in Rubbles, so as the Rubble weakens, it gets easier for them to earn foreign currency to pay for their oil workers and boy has it weakened. Many other countries pay their oil workers in dollars or even worse, Norwegian crowns.

    OPEC (with exception of Venezuela – because the already spent it) are in a great position

    Their oil is cheap and they have built up a war chest of over $1tn through high oil prices to ride out their storm. Indeed, their investment funds may by the collapsed / debt cleared / restructured value of foreign oil producers via their sovereign wealth funds, just as they did some banks in the financial crisis.

    Great for the consumer in the short term

    This is an opportunity to buy a long term alternative whilst the oil is cheap to make it.

    More than anything, it is a massive wake-up call that should stimulate investment into LENR even if it has 1% chance of success in the next 10 years – why? because no nations can compete with oil/gas that costs $100 / barrel to produce when ME countries can do it for a song – buy doing so – they FORCE a glut in oil and oil price is set on the margins. In 1979 there was just a few % miss on supply, now there is a large % over supply.

    • Omega Z

      You know what happens when oil drops low enough. Taps are turned off. You know what happens when oil price goes up. The taps are turned back on. The U.S. Oil industry is very versatile. Most are now efficient enough & still improving & can keep pumping at lower prices then the Saudi’s can afford.

      The only negative effect is opening new fields. Present fields already paid the up front costs of pipelines(A Major Factor in Well cost). Additional wells are cheaper to add. Still, once the price goes back up, new fields will be opened. Long term, the Saudi’s need a minimum $80’s per.

      The Saudi’s are going for market share, mostly in Asia. Market share is important because Customers are creatures of habit. Once obtained, they tend to stay as long as the supply is stable & sustainable. It’s similar to customers who always buy Ford or Chevy, Etc. Unless you pi$$ them off, they almost always come back for the next purchase. Customer Loyalty.

      Note: Whats really going on-Geopolitics The Saudi’s want to make sure that Iran has little market available if they should work out a deal on their nuclear plans with the West & sanctions are lifted. Think like a Saudi… They dislike Iran A LOT…

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are right that he on-going cost is much lower than the sunk costs but the parlous state in US shale is that sunk cost was funded by debt issuance fuelled with near zero % FED borrowing – the debt pile is HUGE and come refinancing will force production to stay on to service it – particularly if these fantasy interest rates ever normalise.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets.html

        But they cannot stop investment, often a shale well production will collapse 81 – 90% in first 24 months, so $42billion has to be invested into new drilling every year just to maintain current production rates.

        “Overall field decline rates are such that 40 percent of production must be replaced annually to maintain production.”

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-13/wall-streets-shale-fraud-exposed

        In contrast, the Ghawar field alone in Saudi has produced up to 6 million barrels a day since 1948 (granted it is the largest oil puddle in the world by far). Currently it is producing 5 million barrels a day of oil and 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day. It has an estimated 71 billion barrels in place.

        Contrast that with the top two shale plays in US that provide 81% of the US shale production – total estimated in place is 5 billion barrels, that is just 10 months US consumption.

        Average cost of production for *traditional* oil/gas per barrel

        US: $33.76
        Middle East: $16.88

        http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6

        Shale BOE is between $40-$50

        and Saudi Arabia has built up a cash pile of $750 billion to ride the storm.

        Many people quote “oil price to balance budget” – it is amazing that many of the middle east countries balance their budgets every year at all given that they have incredible social programs for their natives and basically give oil/gas away.

        Imagine if the UK was to try to balance its budget, we currently have an average deficit of £108billion – that means we would have to add $422 to every barrel of oil we produce to balance our budget – what would be the figure for the US to balance its budget?

        That is why the middle east is comfortable with oil prices and will not consider an OPEC meeting until oil drops below $40/barrel.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are right that he on-going cost is much lower than the sunk costs but the parlous state in US shale is that sunk cost was funded by debt issuance fuelled with near zero % FED borrowing – the debt pile is HUGE and come refinancing will force production to stay on to service it – particularly if these fantasy interest rates ever normalise.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets.html

        But they cannot stop investment, often a shale well production will collapse 81 – 90% in first 24 months, so $42billion has to be invested into new drilling every year just to maintain current production rates.

        “Overall field decline rates are such that 40 percent of production must be replaced annually to maintain production.”

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-13/wall-streets-shale-fraud-exposed

        In contrast, the Ghawar field alone in Saudi has produced up to 6 million barrels a day since 1948 (granted it is the largest oil puddle in the world by far). Currently it is producing 5 million barrels a day of oil and 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day. It has an estimated 71 billion barrels in place.

        Contrast that with the top two shale plays in US that provide 81% of the US shale production – total estimated in place is 5 billion barrels, that is just 10 months US consumption.

        Average cost of production for traditional oil/gas per barrel

        US: $33.76
        Middle East: $16.88

        http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6

        and Saudi Arabia has built up a cash pile of $750 billion to ride the storm.

        Many people quote “oil price to balance budget” – it is amazing that many of the middle east countries balance their budgets every year at all given that they have incredible social programs for their natives and basically give oil/gas away.

        Imagine if the UK was to try to balance its budget, we currently have an average deficit of £108billion – that means we would have to add $422 to every barrel of oil we produce to balance our budget – what would be the figure for the US to balance its budget?

        • bachcole

          Fortunately we have people like you who are going to do an end-run around this problem. (Common American football analogy)

        • Omega Z

          U.S. would need to add about $50 a barrel tax to zap the deficit or an across the board 3% income tax increase tho future deficits are set to increase.

          At 71 billion barrels, The Saudi’s have less then 2 years oil supply for the World considering we use about 44 Billion a year. I’ve read several article’s that indicate the Saudi’s intend to end oil exports by 2035 or 20 years.

          However there intent at this time is to deny Iran a market thus even if Western sanctions are lifted, the are still constrained financially.

          As to Oil output, (Land based), Rule of thumb is the more Initial output, the sooner it declines(Couple months to couple years). Low initial output wells can easily run 20/30 years. There are literally 1000’s of wells that have been pumping 10/20 barrels a day for decades. There are a few not far from me that have been active for 50 years tho have been shut down temporarily when price drops below $15(2014$)

          Most of these were bought by small independents from Bigger companies that don’t want to mess with low production wells. They will pump them until maintenance exceeds income for extended periods. If they produce enough methane by product to power the pump, that cost can be very low.

          Note that November U.S. Oil permits issued slightly declined, but still well exceeded 4000. Crazy numbers most people can’t even imagine.

          • Omega Z

            PS
            I’ve posted before about the Saudi’s huge investments. They are 1 of the few that have planned for the day of no Oil.
            This is also why they always try to increase production when prices go beyond $100 regardless what the rest of OPEC thinks.
            To high a price depresses Economics which in turn hurt their investments. They have to play both sides of the game.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And there in lies the problem. What ever the tax rate (all taxes) the US government only ever seams to capture 17% of GDP – if they raise taxes – people avoid them, stop working so hard, businesses fail etc and they still only get 17% of GDP. Chucking $50 onto a barrel would never work either – there is no actual forseable mechanism that would pay down the US debt – same for Japan, default is inevitable, either overt or by stealth.

            Your balancing the budget is based on current production rates I presume, which as I have discussed is on a very unstable foundation.

            Gharwar at 71 billion barrels is just one of their fields. They actually have around 270 billion in place, but Venezuela is now tops with around 300 (but more expensive to produce). Still as you rightly point out, both of these puddles if fully recovered only amount to 12 years of current world needs – and as noted before, 1979 a few % under supply – MASSIVE increase in price, now – a few percent over supply – MASSIVE decrease in price. Oil price set on margins.

            You are totally right about higher extraction rate leading to less total recoverable.

            Even that first well in the US still produces oil, but it is something like $100,000 per barrel (little souvenir vials).

            The UKs North sea puddle kept the price of oil low for a few decades and as production collapsed – after which the price started to sky rocket.

            http://euanmearns.com/uk-north-sea-oil-production-decline/

            The UK sold its oil for a song much of it for under $20 a barrel and a lot for $11. now we are gonna have to spend a few decades buying it back at multiples of that – the US shale industry is currently performing this role.

            We need LENR – or another option soon, because the party is coming to an end.

          • Omega Z

            Actually, the U.S. Government collects about 1/3rd of GDP as they often point out. The States take in probably another 7/10%. It’s hard to be precise because of how they present the numbers. This is to keep the people in the dark. Every employee pays Social Security+ Medicare Etc that is matched+ by the employer totaling about 15%. They may or may not include this in their numbers at any given time. If you exclude this, then that may be the 17% figure you have.

            For clarity, the $50 relates to the deficit which is separate from the national debt. Speaking of Which-

            China recently stated that they are Broke & Trillions of “Dollars” in debt. Japan is deeply in debt. YET-Both hold a Trillion$ of U.S. Debt. China’s unfunded liabilities far out way those of the U.S. Pretty much every nation in the World either has staggering debt or staggering unfunded future liabilities. It is not looking good for anyone.

            Your broke. I’m broke. Lets loan each other some money, will be in good shape. But 1st, we need to declare ourselves as Nations or I don’t think it works 🙂 Otherwise, the word Fraud & Ponzi comes to mind.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ever since 15 August 1971 developed nations have been living well beyond their means.

            Since 2007 – China has been desperate to create the same level of debt as “the west” – I believe that this is so that when the eventual global debt jubilee arrives, they get a slice of of the value of the reset.

            It is absurd that when an American child takes their first breath they are nearly $60,000 in debt, in UK $40,000 and in Japan $100,000.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-government-debt-per-person-countries

            In contrast, some world citizens find money for every new child in the national kitty when they were born:

            UAE (Abu Dhabi) $839,305 + $97,720 + $66,124
            Norway $176,482
            Qatar $134,737
            Lybia $11,000
            Azerbaijan $3,894
            Botswana $3,243
            Malaysia $1,367

            Some are mixed.
            Singapore $33,396 + $60,377 (but debt is $56,980)

            http://www.swfinstitute.org/sovereign-wealth-fund-profiles/

            That is why I am gonna recommend to my kids they marry a Norwegian.

          • Omega Z

            Ha, I’m single. Maybe I should marry a Norwegian.
            She would have to be dumb tho. Because her income would then fall under the purview of the IRS. She may become liable for U.S. Taxes.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is a strategy play by the big producers in OPEC. It will have these effects

    Crush Shale Gas/liquids in the states and beyond

    At todays oil price, pretty much every US shale play costs more to extract than the price of the oil recovered – and that does not take into consideration any pollution risks or the incredible debt mountain that it is built on. It will additionally crush those that bought the debt bonds causing all kinds of systemic failures – that is one reason it was so important for the big investment banks to get the Comnibus passed last week – to ensure the US taxpayer was on the hook for the ensuing bailout.

    This may well play into big oils hands as all of the smaller shale companies may go bankrupt, leaving the option to re-negotiate their agreements with all the landowners that risked their local environment in perpetuity for a fast buck in the “here and now”. The net result may be that they loose much of that fast buck – but still have all the risks when the price inevitably goes up again.

    The net result will be that the UK, Europe, China etc – may all like to re-visit the wisdom of getting oil and gas from Shale. Even traditional oil investment may collapse as the FT reports <$60 risks $1tn of investment (oh if only 1/10th of 1% of that could be invested in LENR!)

    "Oil price fall threatens $1tn of projects" do google search and hit link to get FT article

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b3d67518-845f-11e4-bae9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3M4r5GvLP

    Little effect on the costs of Russian Oil production

    Despite what the media would have us believe, Russia is MUCH less at risk from this action. The costs of Russian oil production are denominated in Rubbles, so as the Rubble weakens, it gets easier for them to earn foreign currency to pay for their oil workers and boy has it weakened. Many other countries pay their oil workers in dollars or even worse, Norwegian crowns.

    OPEC (with exception of Venezuela – because the already spent it) are in a great position

    Their oil is cheap and they have built up a war chest of over $1tn through high oil prices to ride out their storm. Indeed, their investment funds may by the collapsed / debt cleared / restructured value of foreign oil producers via their sovereign wealth funds, just as they did some banks in the financial crisis.

    Great for the consumer in the short term

    This is an opportunity to buy a long term alternative whilst the oil is cheap to make it.

    More than anything, it is a massive wake-up call that should stimulate investment into LENR even if it has 1% chance of success in the next 10 years – why? because no nations can compete with oil/gas that costs $100 / barrel to produce when ME countries can do it for a song – buy doing so – they FORCE a glut in oil and oil price is set on the margins. In 1979 there was just a few % miss on supply, now there is a large % over supply.

    • Omega Z

      You know what happens when oil drops low enough. Taps are turned off. You know what happens when oil price goes up. The taps are turned back on. The U.S. Oil industry is very versatile. Most are now efficient enough & still improving & can keep pumping at lower prices then the Saudi’s can afford.

      The only negative effect is opening new fields. Present fields already paid the up front costs of pipelines(A Major Factor in Well cost). Additional wells are cheaper to add. Still, once the price goes back up, new fields will be opened. Long term, the Saudi’s need a minimum $80’s per.

      The Saudi’s are going for market share, mostly in Asia. Market share is important because Customers are creatures of habit. Once obtained, they tend to stay as long as the supply is stable & sustainable. It’s similar to customers who always buy Ford or Chevy, Etc. Unless you pi$$ them off, they almost always come back for the next purchase. Customer Loyalty.

      Note: Whats really going on-Geopolitics The Saudi’s want to make sure that Iran has little market available if they should work out a deal on their nuclear plans with the West & sanctions are lifted. Think like a Saudi… They dislike Iran A LOT…

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are right that he on-going cost is much lower than the sunk costs but the parlous state in US shale is that sunk cost was funded by debt issuance fuelled with near zero % FED borrowing – the debt pile is HUGE and come refinancing will force production to stay on to service it – particularly if these fantasy interest rates ever normalise.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets.html

        But they cannot stop investment, often a shale well production will collapse 81 – 90% in first 24 months, so $42billion has to be invested into new drilling every year just to maintain current production rates.

        “Overall field decline rates are such that 40 percent of production must be replaced annually to maintain production.”

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-13/wall-streets-shale-fraud-exposed

        In contrast, the Ghawar field alone in Saudi has produced up to 6 million barrels a day since 1948 (granted it is the largest oil puddle in the world by far). Currently it is producing 5 million barrels a day of oil and 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day. It has an estimated 71 billion barrels in place.

        Contrast that with the top two shale plays in US that provide 81% of the US shale production – total estimated in place is 5 billion barrels, that is just 10 months US consumption.

        Average cost of production for *traditional* oil/gas per barrel

        US: $33.76
        Middle East: $16.88

        http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6

        Shale BOE is between $40-$50

        and Saudi Arabia has built up a cash pile of $750 billion to ride the storm.

        Many people quote “oil price to balance budget” – it is amazing that many of the middle east countries balance their budgets every year at all given that they have incredible social programs for their natives and basically give oil/gas away.

        Imagine if the UK was to try to balance its budget, we currently have an average deficit of £108billion – that means we would have to add $422 to every barrel of oil we produce to balance our budget – what would be the figure for the US to balance its budget?

        That is why the middle east is comfortable with oil prices and will not consider an OPEC meeting until oil drops below $40/barrel.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are right that he on-going cost is much lower than the sunk costs but the parlous state in US shale is that sunk cost was funded by debt issuance fuelled with near zero % FED borrowing – the debt pile is HUGE and come refinancing will force production to stay on to service it – particularly if these fantasy interest rates ever normalise.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/fed-bubble-bursts-in-550-billion-of-energy-debt-credit-markets.html

        But they cannot stop investment, often a shale well production will collapse 81 – 90% in first 24 months, so $42billion has to be invested into new drilling every year just to maintain current production rates.

        “Overall field decline rates are such that 40 percent of production must be replaced annually to maintain production.”

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-13/wall-streets-shale-fraud-exposed

        In contrast, the Ghawar field alone in Saudi has produced up to 6 million barrels a day since 1948 (granted it is the largest oil puddle in the world by far). Currently it is producing 5 million barrels a day of oil and 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day. It has an estimated 71 billion barrels in place.

        Contrast that with the top two shale plays in US that provide 81% of the US shale production – total estimated in place is 5 billion barrels, that is just 10 months US consumption.

        Average cost of production for traditional oil/gas per barrel

        US: $33.76
        Middle East: $16.88

        http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6

        and Saudi Arabia has built up a cash pile of $750 billion to ride the storm.

        Many people quote “oil price to balance budget” – it is amazing that many of the middle east countries balance their budgets every year at all given that they have incredible social programs for their natives and basically give oil/gas away.

        Imagine if the UK was to try to balance its budget, we currently have an average deficit of £108billion – that means we would have to add $422 to every barrel of oil we produce to balance our budget – what would be the figure for the US to balance its budget?

        • bachcole

          Fortunately we have people like you who are going to do an end-run around this problem. (Common American football analogy)

        • Omega Z

          U.S. would need to add about $50 a barrel tax to zap the deficit or an across the board 3% income tax increase tho future deficits are set to increase.

          At 71 billion barrels, The Saudi’s have less then 2 years oil supply for the World considering we use about 44 Billion a year. I’ve read several article’s that indicate the Saudi’s intend to end oil exports by 2035 or 20 years.

          However there intent at this time is to deny Iran a market thus even if Western sanctions are lifted, the are still constrained financially.

          As to Oil output, (Land based), Rule of thumb is the more Initial output, the sooner it declines(Couple months to couple years). Low initial output wells can easily run 20/30 years. There are literally 1000’s of wells that have been pumping 10/20 barrels a day for decades. There are a few not far from me that have been active for 50 years tho have been shut down temporarily when price drops below $15(2014$)

          Most of these were bought by small independents from Bigger companies that don’t want to mess with low production wells. They will pump them until maintenance exceeds income for extended periods. If they produce enough methane by product to power the pump, that cost can be very low.

          Note that November U.S. Oil permits issued slightly declined, but still well exceeded 4000. Crazy numbers most people can’t even imagine.

          • Omega Z

            PS
            I’ve posted before about the Saudi’s huge investments. They are 1 of the few that have planned for the day of no Oil.
            This is also why they always try to increase production when prices go beyond $100 regardless what the rest of OPEC thinks.
            To high a price depresses Economics which in turn hurt their investments. They have to play both sides of the game.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And there in lies the problem. What ever the tax rate (all taxes) the US government only ever seams to capture 17% of GDP – if they raise taxes – people avoid them, stop working so hard, businesses fail etc and they still only get 17% of GDP. Chucking $50 onto a barrel would never work either – there is no actual forseable mechanism that would pay down the US debt – same for Japan, default is inevitable, either overt or by stealth.

            Your balancing the budget is based on current production rates I presume, which as I have discussed is on a very unstable foundation.

            Gharwar at 71 billion barrels is just one of their fields. They actually have around 270 billion in place, but Venezuela is now tops with around 300 (but more expensive to produce). Still as you rightly point out, both of these puddles if fully recovered only amount to 12 years of current world needs – and as noted before, 1979 a few % under supply – MASSIVE increase in price, now – a few percent over supply – MASSIVE decrease in price. Oil price set on margins.

            You are totally right about higher extraction rate leading to less total recoverable.

            Even that first well in the US still produces oil, but it is something like $100,000 per barrel (little souvenir vials).

            The UKs North sea puddle kept the price of oil low for a few decades and as production collapsed – after which the price started to sky rocket.

            http://euanmearns.com/uk-north-sea-oil-production-decline/

            The UK sold its oil for a song much of it for under $20 a barrel and a lot for $11. now we are gonna have to spend a few decades buying it back at multiples of that – the US shale industry is currently performing this role.

            We need LENR – or another option soon, because the party is coming to an end.

          • Omega Z

            Actually, the U.S. Government collects about 1/3rd of GDP as they often point out. The States take in probably another 7/10%. It’s hard to be precise because of how they present the numbers. This is to keep the people in the dark. Every employee pays Social Security+ Medicare Etc that is matched+ by the employer totaling about 15%. They may or may not include this in their numbers at any given time. If you exclude this, then that may be the 17% figure you have.

            For clarity, the $50 relates to the deficit which is separate from the national debt. Speaking of Which-

            China recently stated that they are Broke & Trillions of “Dollars” in debt. Japan is deeply in debt. YET-Both hold a Trillion$ of U.S. Debt. China’s unfunded liabilities far out way those of the U.S. Pretty much every nation in the World either has staggering debt or staggering unfunded future liabilities. It is not looking good for anyone.

            Your broke. I’m broke. Lets loan each other some money, will be in good shape. But 1st, we need to declare ourselves as Nations or I don’t think it works 🙂 Otherwise, the word Fraud & Ponzi comes to mind.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ever since 15 August 1971 developed nations have been living well beyond their means.

            Since 2007 – China has been desperate to create the same level of debt as “the west” – I believe that this is so that when the eventual global debt jubilee arrives, they get a slice of of the value of the reset.

            It is absurd that when an American child takes their first breath they are nearly $60,000 in debt, in UK $40,000 and in Japan $100,000.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-government-debt-per-person-countries

            In contrast, some world citizens find money for every new child in the national kitty when they were born:

            UAE (Abu Dhabi) $839,305 + $97,720 + $66,124
            Norway $176,482
            Qatar $134,737
            Lybia $11,000
            Azerbaijan $3,894
            Botswana $3,243
            Malaysia $1,367

            Some are mixed.
            Singapore $33,396 + $60,377 (but debt is $56,980)

            http://www.swfinstitute.org/sovereign-wealth-fund-profiles/

            That is why I am gonna recommend to my kids they marry a Norwegian.

          • Omega Z

            Ha, I’m single. Maybe I should marry a Norwegian.
            She would have to be dumb tho. Because her income would then fall under the purview of the IRS. She may become liable for U.S. Taxes.

  • Philip James

    If a two to 3 fold reduction in the price of oil is all it takes to hinder LENR… then LENR or even “free” energy doesn’t have a chance.

    Luckily, people have enough of a memory to know oil prices vary at the drop of a hat. What do we always hear about what slows down an economy… UNCERTAINTY. Consumers and companies do not invest because of uncertainty. Tomorrow terrorists might blow up a refinery or two in the Middle East, an Indo-Pakistan war might break out, JJuhbbubeee Virus appears and kills livestock world-wide, etc– and oil prices will skyrocket. Uncertainty.

    LENR provides certainty. That will be an accelerator on economies independent of the lowered cost of energy.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is exactly right and a principle reason for LENR to be developed.

      The other is decentralisation and human independence WITH energy

      • HS61AF91

        The golden gate to freedom is pave with LENR tiles

  • Job001

    Substitution and innovation experience curves are the name of the game.

    Oil cartels increasingly must compete with fracking, cheap fracking(old oil fields), solar, wind, cheap NG, bio, SNG(syntheticNG), efficient use(hybrids, LEDs, PEV), and low cost Gen IV walk away safe nuclear like MSR.

    Likewise, LENR and fusion are coming through research just fine and predictably, and these must compete with the field of choice also. It is fun to see the cartels squirm rather then mom and pop at the gas pump.

    • Fortyniner

      Rossi’s comment, “The price of the E-Cat will be adjusted to the market..” seems to indicate that there is a large margin that could be reduced considerably if this is necessary to undercut the competition.

    • Omega Z

      The filling stations(convenience centers) are actually making more money.
      Filling station margin is 18 cents a gallon.
      Most transactions are by plastic who take 3 cents of every dollar.
      At $4 gas, that transaction(4×3) takes 12 cents of the margin leaving 6 cents.
      At about $2(2×3) takes 6 cents of the margin leaving 12 cents.
      Customers are opting to buy more convenience items. Pop/Chips Etc that are high profit for convenience centers. There smiling.

      There is 1 other factor while prices are falling. The next load of gas costs less then the load they sold. However this cuts both ways. When prices start rising again, the next load can cost more & occasionally exceeds gross sales of the last load.

      Mom & Pop. Not so much. Most are chain owned. A primary convenience centers in my area is owned by 3 Brothers & at last count owned about 200 of them across 2 states. Small by many standards. Prior to the price drop, they had trouble keeping the pumps maintained.

  • Job001

    Substitution and innovation experience curves are the name of the game.

    OPEC Oil cartels increasingly must compete with fracking, cheap fracking(old oil fields), solar, wind, cheap NG, bio, SNG(syntheticNG), efficient use(hybrids, LEDs, PEV), and low cost Gen IV walk away safe nuclear like MSR.

    Likewise, LENR and fusion are coming through research just fine and predictably, and these must compete with the field of choice also. It is fun to see the cartels squirm rather then customers at the gas pump.

    • Rossi’s comment, “The price of the E-Cat will be adjusted to the market..” seems to indicate that there is a large margin that could be reduced considerably if this is necessary to undercut the competition.

    • Omega Z

      The filling stations(convenience centers) are actually making more money.
      Filling station margin is 18 cents a gallon.
      Most transactions are by plastic who take 3 cents of every dollar.
      At $4 gas, that transaction(4×3) takes 12 cents of the margin leaving 6 cents.
      At about $2(2×3) takes 6 cents of the margin leaving 12 cents.
      Customers are opting to buy more convenience items. Pop/Chips Etc that are high profit for convenience centers. There smiling.

      There is 1 other factor while prices are falling. The next load of gas costs less then the load they sold. However this cuts both ways. When prices start rising again, the next load can cost more & occasionally exceeds gross sales of the last load.

      Mom & Pop. Not so much. Most are chain owned. A primary convenience centers in my area is owned by 3 Brothers & at last count owned about 200 of them across 2 states. Small by many standards. Prior to the price drop, they had trouble keeping the pumps maintained.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is exactly right and a principle reason for LENR to be developed.

    The other is decentralisation and human independence WITH energy

    • mytakeis

      The golden gate to freedom is pave with LENR tiles

  • Jack T.

    The Los Angeles Times this morning claims the goal of the oil price drop is to torpedo the Keystone pipeline.

    • bachcole

      Could be.

      • psi2u2

        If LENR is real, I can’t see it paying a very good ROI, can you?

        • Omega Z

          Were looking at a 40/50 year transition. The pipeline will more then pay for itself & be utilized for it’s full 40 year life cycle.

          • psi2u2

            Possibly.

          • bkrharold

            The oil companies will reap the profits, and taxpayers will bear the environmental and health costs

          • bachcole

            And the oil companies will pay out dividends to pension funds that little old ladies deposited their savings into over their earning years because they were responsible about their future. My mother was one of those little old ladies and I got a very small inheritance, which saved our asses when I was unable to get a job because of my age and obnoxious personality, neither of which people have much control over.

        • bachcole

          Yes. Without LENR, I would be in favor of the Keystone pipeline. But with LENR, I don’t see why we should bother.

    • Omega Z

      That’s just people grasping for reason. Trying to make sense of whats happening because the reality doesn’t fit theirs.

      They also claim the Saudi’s are trying to break the Shale oil projects.
      The Saudi’s are looking for long term market share in the Asia arena. That’s all.

      Simply put, The Saudi’s can not sell oil at the current price long term & especially not below $40. If the shale oil drilling is halted, It will merely start back up when Oil exceeds $40 a barrel. The Saudi’s need $80 to stay viable in the long term. They are very aware of this. Extending their market share is the only logical reason. Even if the L.A. Times & others can’t figure that out.

  • Achi

    What is happening right now is a good indicator of what will happen when LENR hits the mainstream. What we have is a market with too much oil and an unclear replacement for it. In other words what we are seeing now is the market overreacting to having a little too much oil for a short period of time. If this is how they react when they have a little too much, imagine how they react when there is a clear replacement for oil.

    • Obvious

      Finally we can afford to replace wood, steel and asphalt with plastic. 3-D printed plastic housing for the poor, here we come! Plastic roads that never get pot holes or hot enough to fry eggs in summer, color-coded bus, bicycle and pedestrian lanes, maybe even soothing pastel colors to match local architecture, glow in the dark safety indicators…. The future is bright indeed.

      • bkrharold

        Industrial Hemp is far better than plastic, as a substitute for many building materials, wood steel, bricks, etc though probably not asphalt. It is cheaper and better for the environment than plastic.

        • Joel C.

          Solar Roadways will replace asphalt.

        • psi2u2

          Ah, now there is a better idea. Check out hempcrete, already one of the best building materials you could ask for, outperforming all alternatives.

          • bachcole

            Given the pressure of capitalism and the ignorance and lack of ideals of
            most people, industrial hemp will have to be better with regard to
            price and performance, and to hell with the environment. Is it so? I
            hope so.

          • psi2u2

            I think the performance standards are unmatched in the industry. That is not from careful comparison, but it is my impression from what I have read. Farmers in many traditional hemp states like Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee are agitating for legal hemp and when that happens I think we will see a whole re-energization of our rural economies as a result. It is separate but obviously related to the larger question of cannabis – the very fact that the industrial (no THC) varieties were also made illegal in 1937 suggests that hemp itself, drug aside, was the actual enemy – its continued production threatened to derail the widespread use of nylon (and probably other plastics) and paper pulp. It is cheaper than and in some respects superior to these modern industrial products.

          • bachcole

            I understand that hemp is also very easy to grow. Can you give us a link that you respect?

          • psi2u2

            Hi Bachole, sorry I don’t think I have anything better on that particular topic than what you can find using google yourself. There is a real resurgence in interest in it, largely due to the delayed response to Jack Herer’s *The Emperor has No Clothes,* original written in the 1980s or so.

            Although the book contains some errors, I think the basic thesis is solid – to wit, that the primary reason why cannabis was made illegal originally was to cut hemp out of production, since it competed very favorably with both nylon and wood pulp. Some people like to reject this idea as a “conspiracy theory,” which, given the evidence, strikes me as a bit affected.

            It seems that, fortunately, the country has started to see the light both on reform of psychoactive cannabis and hemp. Its the same plant, but grows in many varied ways, and the hemp strains have very little active ingredient and put their energy into producing very large quantities of highly versatile pulp. The plant has been grown, both for its psychoactive and its practical uses, for well over 5,000 years. It would be a great boon to the country to bring it back as an industrial commodity, which seems to be happening.

          • psi2u2

            I believe that it has many applications in which it can competitively produce superior products, including clothing, paper, and building products.

          • bkrharold

            Yes I looked it up, it is fantastic. Thanks for that

      • Omega Z

        Nature has it’s own natural polymers that would be far better for roads & last far & beyond today’s roadways. It is another Science that has went unexploited.

        The fact that those who have considered exploiting it want to charge triple the price of concrete probably hasn’t helped. In reality, It should be half present road materials.

        By the way, No plastic roads. That stuff melts & gets slung onto you, peels the skin right off.

      • psi2u2

        We’d better make sure those plastics don’t erode to form poisonous particulates, as many we currently use do. Other than that, good idea!

    • psi2u2

      Right.

  • Obvious

    Finally we can afford to replace wood, steel and asphalt with plastic. 3-D printed plastic housing for the poor, here we come! Plastic roads that never get pot holes or hot enough to fry eggs in summer, color-coded bus, bicycle and pedestrian lanes, maybe even soothing pastel colors to match local architecture, glow in the dark safety indicators…. The future is bright indeed.

    • bachcole

      I do not think that the price of oil will have much impact on LENR in general. Remember also that coal and gas have not budged, and everyone on the planet knows that fossil fuels have had their day.

      • psi2u2

        I looks to me like coal has been creeping downward since 2011, although it is still higher now than in 2009 at the height of the crash.

        • Omega Z

          The slight slump in coal price is likely because coal was ramping up for additional demand from China. However, China’s demand didn’t increase as much as expected.

    • bkrharold

      Industrial Hemp is far better than plastic, as a substitute for many building materials, wood steel, bricks, etc though probably not asphalt. It is cheaper and better for the environment than plastic.

      • psi2u2

        Ah, now there is a better idea. Check out hempcrete, already one of the best building materials you could ask for, outperforming all alternatives.

        • bkrharold

          Yes I looked it up, it is fantastic. Thanks for that

    • Omega Z

      Nature has it’s own natural polymers that would be far better for roads & last far & beyond today’s roadways. It is another Science that has went unexploited.

      The fact that those who have considered exploiting it want to charge triple the price of concrete probably hasn’t helped. In reality, It should be half present road materials.

      By the way, No plastic roads. That stuff melts & gets slung onto you, peels the skin right off.

    • psi2u2

      We’d better make sure those plastics don’t erode to form poisonous particulates, as many we currently use do. Other than that, good idea!

  • psi2u2

    It is interesting that this is a reciprocal relationship.

    I would say this might help to explain why Tom Dardan has been so consistently underplaying rather than overplaying the IH hand. If there is a knowledge of LENR among sufficient big players, which Bill Gates sudden involvement in LENR seems to confirm, then Dardan could easily be in a position to spook the markets.

    There is some evidence that he’s not even needed to do it, and that events like the Lugano Report have been enough. The Secretary of OPEC said that prices are being driven down because of “speculative” forces – but that explains nothing. Why were the “speculative forces” not bullish on the long term price anymore, like they were a few years ago? I know there are other answers to this, but I don’t think we know enough to rule out the possibility that, as sifferkol has been saying, there is a causal link, i.e. that a substantial part of that “speculative” force pulled out of oil because of what they had heard about LENR. I know that my retirement fund (a very big institutional player) got at least one advice about three years ago about this along with a request that they follow it because of the possible world economic implications of very significant proportions.

    Anyway, I hope I didn’t break any rules by actually talking about the possible impact of LENR on the markets. But your reframing of the question made me want to go back and review why this could be a very interesting situation, when we think of the price of conventional fuels as being in some kind of dynamic equilibrium (or not) with the threat of really serious alternatives like LENR. If so, the price of oil (or other similar energy commodities like coal or uranium) is partly a function of the threat of systemic change. But as the change proceeds and the price of the commodity tanks, this could constrict optimal development of the alternative because it is no longer cost effective in the short term. When the equilibrium breaks down, individuals unfortunately get hurt in the process.

  • psi2u2

    It is interesting that this is a reciprocal relationship.

    I would say this might help to explain why Tom Dardan has been so consistently underplaying rather than overplaying the IH hand. If there is a knowledge of LENR among sufficient big players, which Bill Gates sudden involvement in LENR seems to confirm, then Dardan could easily be in a position to spook the markets.

    There is some evidence that he’s not even needed to do it, and that events like the Lugano Report have been enough. The Secretary of OPEC said that prices are being driven down because of “speculative” forces – but that explains nothing. Why were the “speculative forces” not bullish on the long term price anymore, like they were a few years ago? I know there are other answers to this, but I don’t think we know enough to rule out the possibility that, as sifferkol has been saying, there is a causal link, i.e. that a substantial part of that “speculative” force pulled out of oil because of what they had heard about LENR. I know that my retirement fund (a very big institutional player) got at least one advice about three years ago about this along with a request that they follow it because of the possible world economic implications of very significant proportions.

    Anyway, I hope I didn’t break any rules by actually talking about the possible impact of LENR on the markets. But your reframing of the question made me want to go back and review why this could be a very interesting situation, when we think of the price of conventional fuels as being in some kind of dynamic equilibrium (or not) with the threat of really serious alternatives like LENR. If so, the price of oil (or other similar energy commodities like coal or uranium) is partly a function of the threat of systemic change. But as the change proceeds and the price of the commodity tanks, this could constrict optimal development of the alternative because it is no longer cost effective in the short term. When the equilibrium breaks down, individuals unfortunately get hurt in the process.

  • bachcole

    I do not think that the price of oil will have much impact on LENR in general. Remember also that coal and gas have not budged, and everyone on the planet knows that fossil fuels have had their day.

    • psi2u2

      I looks to me like coal has been creeping downward since 2011, although it is still higher now than in 2009 at the height of the crash.

      • Omega Z

        The slight slump in coal price is likely because coal was ramping up for additional demand from China. However, China’s demand didn’t increase as much as expected.

  • Physicist and former Apollo 7 astronaut, Walt Cunningham, does not think oil, coal, and natural gas have anything to do with “Climate Change”, and therefore LENR will save us money on energy bills, decrease the cost of food, and bring prosperity, but won’t save us from man made global warming, which he says does not even exist. Cunningham makes some good points and explains why the “97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming” argument is a fraud.

    See the YouTube video of astronaut Walt Cunningham at the Lima Climate Change Conference.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPPP7yagRU&index=5&list=WL

    • bkrharold

      Unfortunately the subject of Climate Change has become politicized, by a deliberate campaign of misinformation, by wealthy people in the fossil fuel industry. The Koch brothers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this campaign. People like Walt Cunningham are obviously not listening to the scientific community, who are over 97% in agreement that climate change is man made.

      • bachcole

        The pot calling the kettle black. When we use the word “politicized”, it goes both ways.

        How can a certified paradigm shifter (certified because you are here at http://www.e-catworld.com) like yourself not attempt to see both side to this issue?

        • psi2u2

          I agree. I was quite convinced global warming was real, and a threat, during the 1990s. But by the turn of the millenium I started looking into the actual science and was amazed to learn how flimsy the IPCC reports really are. Call them what you will, they are certainly NOT science in some very clear respects.

          • bkrharold

            The IPCC is only one of many scientific organizations which have endorsed AGW. Here is a link from the NASA site naming many others, with a graph of Global temperatures vs time.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          • bachcole

            The graph only goes back to 1880. That is even more lame than 1850, a date mentioned elsewhere here. It is a very convenient omission of so much of what we know to be true, so many highs higher than where we are now, and so many lows lower than what we have seen since 1880. It is so truly staggering that it seems almost corrupt.

          • more than that, IPCC itself have explained that AGW could only have starte about 1950… rest is ad-hoc.

            I started by trusting IPCC then I have seen their methods, and strangely they look like the one of fraudsters. Some skeptics are not bette than warmist however. I advise to read Judith Curry, and those she trust. She was in the IPCC.

            note that like in LENR, the 97% consensus is mostly based
            1- on evaporation of the dissenters who are fired, rejected, pushed to resign, not rehired…
            2- on terror against those who may think about dissenting (you need a job : follow the line). When you hear a retired skeptic who says, I cannot ask interns to help me or their career will be ruined, you know what is real academic “openness”.
            3- on passive conformism and confidence (my best friend told me, the boss said, the Nobel said)

            today the way the hiatus is managed is worse than the worse than the skeptic accuse use to do, and even worse of what they do.
            they produce papers to justify, which is debunked few month after, then find another excuse…

            the data are even more tweaked than MIT LENr experiments, with past cooling down every year, with bias of temperature increasing every year.
            There is huge cherrypicking on what can be still questionable, but for which they hide all the questions…

            I don’t even know if it is erroneous, it is simply corrupted science, science of groupthink.

            the Benabou theory of groupthink match exactly the process we observe with global warming story…
            terror agins dissenters, huge investments, denial of evidences, cherrypicking, delusion trickle down from elite to bottom…

            this is LENR denial in worse.

            anyway it is solved.

            however after discussing about similar groupthink and group delusion like Jihadist , a specialist in politics and sociology explained me that once brains are filled with so much delusion, it is very hard to make them change with evidence. The victims will imagine that any opposed evidence is a conspiracy of the Evil …

            see how some imagine LENR will make the planet awful, will pollute with waste heat, or destroy oxygen, or make the planet melt down… just because they want to believe.

            lost generation.

          • bkrharold

            Not that I have any reason to doubt the IPCC, but there are many more worldwide scientific organizations that hold the opinion that climate change has been caused by human action.

            Here is a list of 200:-

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            There are several global warming skeptic organizations. none of them are scientific, They are all right wing funded “think tanks”
            Here is a link to a page describing these organizations:-

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VJj4914AA

            American Enterprise Institute

            The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1]

            AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]

            Americans for Prosperity

            Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7]

            While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8] These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.

            AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11]

            Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]

            American Legislative Exchange Council

            The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.

            ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]

            Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

            From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.

            BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]

            Cato Institute

            Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato’s website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24]

            Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]

            Competitive Enterprise Institute

            The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.” [31]

            CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36]

            Heartland Institute

            While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37]

            Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39]

            Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43]

            Heritage Foundation

            While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]

            Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]

            Institute for Energy Research

            The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.

            IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55].

            Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

            The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56]

            The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60]

          • bachcole

            Given that cold fusion checks AGW and makes it moot, and you know this, the fact that you have so much emotion invested in this subject makes me worry that you are incapable of thinking straight about it.

          • bkrharold

            Happy holidays to you

          • bachcole

            Here is my Christmas present to you: AGW doesn’t matter anymore. It is now, for us, a theory whereby we can butt our heads together like rams, proving who is the mostly manly debater. Let us drop it. I am.

          • bkrharold

            You are right, it is a waste of energy squabbling over AGW. Happy and prosperous New Year to you.

          • bachcole

            I hope that you also prosper in the ways that matter.

            Unfortunately, I have been through this before with other people, including myself. We see the reality of AGW becoming a non-issue thanks to LENR, and then we go right back to butting our heads over it. Do you think that rams like to butt their heads with such terrific wallops that it can be heard from miles away? Probably not, but they just can’t help themselves, like teenagers picking pimples. (:->)

          • bkrharold

            As I was reading your response, it occurred to me that my Hebrew name is Zvi which means Ram. But you are right, it is a waste of energy and accomplishes nothing, fighting over AGW. I read a book called The power of Now, by Eckhart Tolle. He believes that our egos are the cause of much of the violence in the world. He thinks the ego is a fragile thing constructed from our mental energy. It pretends to be who we are. It is comprised of our beliefs and prejudices. It must protect itself at all costs, and will argue and fight to be right, and make the other person wrong. This is how it gets its energy.

          • bachcole

            I have heard of Eckhart Tolle. I prefer Meher Baba, but what you said Tolle said is exactly right on what Meher Baba has said. Tolle did fail to mention that egoism is fun, but this fun is very short lived and destructive on so many levels. It is an addiction. I am addicted to Christmas food-goodies, but they are killing me. They are fun, but they are going to be the death of me, to say nothing of fat feet, peripheral neuropathy, irritability, weight gain, etc. etc. etc. (:->)

          • bkrharold

            I had not heard of Meher Baba. The Wikipedia article describes his life works and be!iefs. I was wondering who it is in the picture you use for your avatar. The ego is fun, until it is not. It can become more than tiresome. I have reached the conclusion, that the ego is an essential part of our journey here on earth. Rather than an obstacle, it can be a tool for self awareness. Yes you are certainly right about those treats that are so bad for us, but taste so good. I have been warned by my doctor, but sometimes yield to temptation.

          • bachcole

            bkrharold, this is not the forum to talk about Meher Baba. Ask Frank to give to you my email address and we can talk freely about Him.

            Wikipedia is ALWAYS unreliable when dealing with anything non-mainstream. There are websites devoted to Meher Baba. You can learn more there.

            I can resist anything but temptation.

            I shot my doctor and have now become my own doctor. (:->)

          • bkrharold

            If that is not enough here is a link to a graph published on the NASA website. It has two graphs going back 800,000 years comparing average global temperature variation vs carbon dioxide levels.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

            Here is their conclusion:-

            Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when people first started burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. This means that for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 387 of them are now carbon dioxide—the highest concentration in two million years. Methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion in 1750 to 1,774 parts per billion in 2005, the highest concentration in at least 650,000 years.

          • psi2u2

            Yes I know that many powerful institutions have and do endorse the concept. However, that does not oblige anyone of free conscience and informed mind to accept it.

            As I mentioned, I went from being by political inclination a very strong member of the alarmist fringe (and still have many friends who hold similar views), only because I got serious about trying to follow the science and read alternative points of view on the subject. This led me to the conclusion that 1) the proposed link between warming – which most people on all sides agree happened in two major phases (1930s and 1990s) during the 20th century – and Co2 emissions is doubtful at best and probably on the verge of being empirically disproven; 2) Warming is, generally speaking, a good thing for the human race and many other species (where do you go for vacation?); 3) The global warming movement is significantly compromised by “noble cause corruption.

          • bachcole

            Let us keep in mind the percentage of Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1933: something above 97%.

          • bkrharold

            It is still not a threat, neither to you or me. It is a threat to those unfortunate enough to be born when the climate has become far less hospitable to human life. Their lives will be extremely difficult, and those who come after them?… well there will be fewer and fewer until there will be nobody left. The question is do we care enough about people who have yet to be born, or who might never have a chance to live, because of the decisions we are making today?

          • bachcole

            “It is a threat to those unfortunate enough to be born when the climate has become far less hospitable to human life.” Cry me a river.

            You certainly have a lot of emotions invested in this global warming matter, EVEN THOUGH IT IS MOOT, since LENR is real.

          • psi2u2

            I disagree that this is the primary question. I refer you to the Wattsupwiththat website for further details.

        • Observer

          My main concern is the falsifiability of the hypothesis of man made global climate change / global warming. If there is no way of proving a hypothesis false than it does not qualify as a hypothesis.

          • bkrharold

            So you will only believe in AGW if someone can prove that it is false?

        • bkrharold

          I have believed in LENR since I heard of the first press meeting by Pons and Fleischman. I refused to believe these two professional scientists, experts in their field, were incapable of doing simple heat measurements accurately.
          In the same way, I am absolutely convinced by the majority of climate scientists support of AGW. The evidence is in, there is no longer any doubt.

          • bachcole

            If the definition of a climate science is a scientist who believes in AGW (otherwise they would not be working as “climate scientists”), then they would certainly support AGW.

          • bkrharold

            Climate Scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. Consensus is reached after a majority reach the same conclusion. This is a process, accomplished by studying the available evidence, observing trends and making predictions, based on current understanding of the factors governing the climate. Results are published in peer reviewed journals, which are analyzed, and either accepted or rejected. When the vast majority of scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals support the same hypothesis, it constitutes a consensus.
            Scientists have no opinions, and believe in nothing. That is true of all real scientists. They reach logical conclusions based on objective measurements, and current scientific knowledge.

          • bachcole

            “Climate Scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads.” That is a faith that I don’t share with you. I have faith in Mats Lewan et. al. because they have nothing to gain. But Climate Scientists are paid to push an agenda, so I don’t trust them to be following the evidence. Do you trust the 1989 MIT crowd to follow the evidence?

      • Watch the video to see where the “97%” figure comes from. If you have a closed mind and never listen to opposing views, you will never be on the side of truth, only on the side of what is hip and trendy to believe in.

        • bkrharold

          I watched the video, and listened to the explanation. The figure actually comes from a review of 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming. To see the reference click on the link below.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

          • bachcole

            99.9% of all scientists say that cold fusion is bunk. 99.99% of all physicists say that cold fusion is bunk.

          • bkrharold

            They have not studied cold fusion and published scientific papers in journals for peer review, to support the claim that cold fusion is bunk. Climate scientists have done the research and published their results, which support AGW.

          • bachcole

            So called climate scientists are hired with the knowledge that they will support the AGW hypothesis, one of those very inconvenient settled science thingies.

          • I believe Walt was talking about the very first study that popularized the crazy 97% figure. Many studies have been conducted since that first study making all kinds of claims, but are they really accurate? How easy is it to get an alarmist study published vs. a thoughtful and neutral minded study published about climate change? How hard is it to get a study published about cold fusion, unless it is to deny cold fusion exists?

            One study I read found that most scientific studies promote false ideas that fail to pass the test of time. This is all a big mess and a joke because it has become a religion and a business. How many scientists are qualified to have an opinion on climate change? How many schools are now manufacturing “climate scientists” at an alarming rate to cash in on the multi-billion dollar climate scare industry? It is a bandwagon, not science.

            Margaret Thatcher can be blamed for getting this bandwagon rolling by paying scientists to find a link between atmospheric CO2 levels and Earth temperatures. She did this in order to promote nuclear energy in the UK when she was Prime Minister. If you pay scientists to do something, they will deliver a product. That is why so many bad drugs get FDA approval.

            Walt correctly talked about the lack of the proper use of the scientific method in so-called “climate science” these days. ,IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted that the 2014 report was tailored to meet the political goals of governments: “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.” In other words they are paid to promote a predetermined conclusion. That invalidates their work entirely.

            See the very thoughtful YouTube video, *Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off* at:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi6HBGfBOKU&noredirect=1

          • bachcole

            Nice thoughts, nice presentation.

          • bkrharold

            “How many scientists are qualified to have an opinion on climate change”

            100% of climate scientists should be able to form an opinion based on the evidence. Otherwise they are in the wrong line of work.
            Scientists from other areas, and even non scientists, are entitled to their opinions based on their limited knowledge, but that is all they are opinions, unsupported by data or science.

          • bachcole

            “Scientists from other areas, and even non scientists, are entitled to
            their opinions based on their limited knowledge, but that is all they
            are opinions, unsupported by data or science.” It is astonishing that you would say that. You mean psychology graduates are incapable of looking at the evidence? And incapable of forming anything but an Unsupported opinion? This is precisely what hot-fusionists are saying about cold fusion. I am incapable of forming anything but a STUPID opinion about cold fusion. The people who saw rocks falling from the sky for 200 years were incapable of observing that rocks were falling from the sky. The Wright Bros. were incapable of making an airplane, which everyone knows is impossible; if Professor Langley fell into the Potomac like a fool, then we can be certain the bicycle mechanics didn’t fly at Kitty Hawk.

            I don’t need the infinite knowledge of your climate scientist gods to know that they messed with the data, that they abandoned the hockey stick when it became an inconvenient lie, that they made the Medieval Warm Period disappear because it did not suit their purposes, and likewise with the Little Ice Age.

            Hell will freeze over before I kow tow to anyone and believe anything without proper evidence. The phrase Climate Science does not cut any ice with me.

      • psi2u2

        Hi BK, as you know I really like your previous comment about the possible scale of LENR impact given the energy densities involved. Although my other political beliefs might sway me to think so, I am fairly convinced that it is not the fossil fuel industry which began by politicizing science – it was the global warming activists (among whom I once would have counted myself). The science supporting their propositions is often not very credible, to be charitable. Anyway antarctica is growing, and arctic sea ice levels and polar bears are both flourishing.

        • I believed in man made global warming until a couple of years ago. The more I looked into it, the more I found the bad science behind it. Those many scientists skeptical of the popular theory seem much better informed, more logical, and far more honest than those who continue to preach impending doom. We may indeed face impending doom, but not from man made global warming. There are many serious threats against human civilization, but we have placed the long-shot threat of man made climate change at the top of the list of threats, which is a mistake. I favor the scientific method, not bandwagons. If we want to worry, we have enough real problems to keep us busy. We don’t need to invent them and pay an army of scientists to find evidence to support our unjustified fears.

          • psi2u2

            Chris, you and I seem to have followed a similar evolution on this topic. And I agree, one of the worst things about the global warming scam is that we do face real threats – for example, overfishing of our oceans could have catastrophic consequences if we do not manage the resources better than we have in the past, the proliferation of plastics at all scales in our environment is having unexpected negative consequences which could become pretty bad, etc. We have plenty of issues to deal with that are real one.

          • bachcole

            Thank you for that, psi2u2. My disbelief in AGW does not lessen my enthusiasm for LENR even so much as a single nano-enthus.

          • bkrharold

            I find that encouraging. Even though we do not agree about AGW we can at least agree about LENR.

          • Inter-Connected Whole

            HI there, I’m a new poster at e-catworld – but I’ve been quietly visiting and reading for the better part of the last 6 months.

            The ‘global warming’ issue, in my mind’s eye, is a very frustrating one. It tends to polarize groups of people; or at least not allow for grey areas of speculation/renunciation.

            If you’re not ‘in’ with the acceptors and promoters (supporters?) of it, then you’re somehow in cahoots with the petroleum industry, or, you are a religious extremist who believes the end of days prophecy and that this ‘global warming’ has been prophecized and signals the return of the messiah – and all that myth-based chatter.

            Simply put, I have no financial ties nor do I have emotional bonds with the petroleum industries. If anything, I’m not so convinced that their lobby influence in global markets and governments is helping to create a peaceful and positive global community.

            I would, for the sake of using recognized labels, place myself in the ‘agnostic’ camp; with a background and affinity for zen buddhist thought. I certainly do not believe that someone who most likely never existed is about to come back to harvest the myth believers who bowed in his or his equally myth-based father’s name.

            So, as many posters have done so all around the internet, and here as well, I’m not so inclined to ignore that data used to justify ‘global warming’ is from a rather modern (recent) period of time, and, it overlooks or, possibly, intentionally omits data from a more far-reaching reference and instead focuses on a sparse time frame.

            As another point of perspective, I’m a Canadian living in China – where PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels are much higher than I’d like.

            I don’t know if there is any relation between CO2 levels and either of the PM levels, but frankly the city in which I live has very lush greenery; if only you could see it most days.

            Some would argue that if you deny/renounce the ‘global warming’ scare, you are pro-pollution and pro this and pro that. Really? Then, either I am a bizarre anomaly or I simply am a person who is not willing to be bullied or mocked into believing something which, simply put, doesn’t sit well.

            I am certainly not for: the pollution of the oceans, seas and lakes. I’m not for the pollution of our skies and eventually the deep tissue in our lungs – nor am I a supporter of the pollution of our land from which our food comes; I won’t get into the use GMOs or hyper hormone injections to the meat supply on this one… Not “for” either, though.

            Something in me says that we need a heck of a lot more focus on tangible neglect to our environment which directly impacts what we consume to survive: water, air and solid food. The popular mantra is “CO2! CO2! CO2!”

            If we cannot curb poisoning ourselves to death within those three key areas of human need, it won’t matter whether or not we have an ozone layer in 50 to 100 to 1000 years.

            I don’t buy ‘global warming’, but I am absolutely not for mass pollution of our Earth.

            I’m thankful for a friend who shared some details with me about the LENR field and have been cautiously optimistic about the possibilities since visiting and reading here.

            I really do want to see LENR energy sources in abundance on Earth. There is so much potential to assist cleaning up a big mess we are making.

            This could be a great legacy for the human race.

            Peace

          • psi2u2

            I agree completely that there are much more important environmental issues that require our attention, money, and intelligence to solve. Hopefully LENR will be a big part of the solution!

        • bkrharold

          Although I am not a global warming activist, I certainly believe that climate change exists, and is caused by humans.The preponderance of the evidence is inescapable. I read the Scientific American magazine, a very sober and conservative journal. Their position on climate change is unequivocally in the AGW camp. The following article comes from Scientific American, and explains the origin of quote message that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. They describe the issue, as moral and political. Most of us alive today will not be affected, but our children and grandchildren will.

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

          • bachcole

            Was Scientific American a sober and conservative journal in 1908 when they scandalously castigated the Wright Bros?

            The problem is the human caused part. Do you actually believe that a plant nutrient that goes from 1 part in 2700 to 1 part in 2600 of the atmosphere going to cause a change in the climate when there is this 800 pound gorilla in the climate room that is everywhere and DOES affect everything: water. We can easily notice a difference in the weather from St. Louis to Colorado Springs simply due to the humidity, and this does not address ocean currents, snow, lakes, etc. etc. etc.

      • Omega Z

        The Koch’s are a minority compared to spending from the opposite agenda. MSM support itself far exceeds any amount the Koch’s spend. As to fossil fuel industry, many of them have caved due to political pressure. Also, They’ve been assured that they can sell the goods to the developing/3rd world.

        The U.N. wants the developed world to meet their agreed upon 100 Billion$ a year by 2020 & increase that to a minimum 200 Billion$ in following years to the developing/3rd world. Note at the Lima, Peru Climate conference, Those who will receive these CO2 tax funds are upset. They want the taxes implemented faster & their Money NOW.

        It’s all about wealth redistribution(which include Resources). Much of the Carbon tax will go to developing/3rd world countries who can spend that money on Coal/Fossil fueled powered plants if they choose. Do to a fuss about appearance, a caveat was added. They must install scrubbers. FACT, There are not enough Fossil resources to go around unless the developed countries use far less.

        “over 97% in agreement”
        Let me devise my own survey & I can provide over 99% in agreement that Climate change is not man made. And Note 50% of their 97% will make my list. How? Question, Do you believe man can affect the environment.? Yes. Add this to the 97% even tho nothing claimed man made global warming. Many of those listed among the 97% have stated that their views were taken out of context.

        However, If it were me manipulating the numbers, I would have claimed 80%. Seriously, you can’t get 97% of Scientists to agree on anything & in their survey, many weren’t even scientists in a true sense & most have nothing to do with climate studies other then what they read in these reports. We see published articles all the time where a scientist from a different field will state, “We’ll I wasn’t part of the study but it looks good”.

        Political Agenda’s need layers for assurance of success.
        If someone invented a machine that sucked all the excess CO2 out of the air, Climate change will go full phase plan B. Methane is then the primary problem. If another Invention intervenes, Then Plan C. Aerosol’s become the next GW target. E-cats will be taxed They will produce Steam/Vapor/Aerosol. Maybe at this point, People will realize it’s all about international Political Agenda’s.

        No need to settle this discussion today. Just wait & see how it continues once the E-cat is a marketed product. The Agenda will continue.

        • bkrharold

          The 97% refers to climate scientists. That is scientists who make their living studying the climate. They use data collected since global weather data record keeping began in 1850, and other data collected from ice samples taken at the poles, as well as biological data from tree rings. etc.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

          This figure came from analysis of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011, which found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

          Most scientific organizations worldwide support the view that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and have issued public statements endorsing this position.

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          Nobody is claiming that the sky is falling, and we are all going to die tomorrow. The Earths climate is a huge system, which changes very slowly, but once it starts moving it is very difficult to stop, or even slow down. Most of us will not be affected by the coming changes, but our children, and grandchildren will. This year is shaping up to be the hottest since records began.

          http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/world/climate-change-report/index.html

          You may believe as you wish, but the climate, does not care about human opinions. There is a story about a King who imagined himself so powerful, that he could turn back the tide,. just by his command.

          In the 12th century, King Cnut believed himself so powerful, he could turn the tides. He set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person.

          • bachcole

            “The 97% refers to climate scientists. That is scientists who make their
            living studying the climate. They use hard data collected since they
            began collecting global weather data in 1850.”

            “climate scientists” is a made up term and refers to those people, scientists usually, who believe in AGW. I prefer the 31,487 scientists who signed a petition not supporting AGW. http://www.petitionproject.org/

            Ignoring obvious climate changes before 1850 is a very convenient way of ignoring an inconvenient truth, like the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period and so many other inconvenient facts.

  • bkrharold

    I think you grossly underestimate the cost of fossil fuel and its transportation. With LENR, a few pounds of nickel powder, an amount that can be carried by one person, can produce the same amount of energy as hundreds of thousands of tons of coal, that would fill a miles long freight train. Even at $1million the ecat will be a bargain, considering the savings. If they gave away oil and coal, it would still be more expensive than LENR.

    • psi2u2

      Very interesting idea.

    • Daniel Maris

      The cost of LENR lies more in the complexity of the machinery and the need to closely monitor – and possibly configure in real time.

      It may take a while to address all the cost issues. But I have no doubt, if the technology is genuine, the cost will decline rapidly since it must be susceptible to computer control.

    • Omega Z

      To begin with, Corporations look to pay back periods or ROI & I think this is what Frank is getting at. Cheaper fuels would have an effect at the Corporate level.

      Cheap Oil will have some effect on the transport of coal & to some degree, the cost of extracting coal. I doubt it will have any effect on the cost of coal to power plant price.

      Cheap Oil will have an effect of drilling for N-gas, but little or any effect on sales price. Basically the price of Coal & N-gas will continue to be supply/demand.

      Cheap Oil itself also wont have a negative impact to the E-cat competitiveness as it is primarily a transportation fuel. To the Contrary, It would enable the E-cat to be built cheaper.

      As Oil is a major contributor to the extraction & transport cost of Raw Materials & to a lesser extent, the processing of these raw materials, The E-cat and all that entails(Boilers/exchangers & such) will be cheaper to manufacture.

      As to the Original 1.5 Million$ price tag. “Call it- At That Point In Time.”
      Customers Price $1.5 Million
      20% commission $300K dealers gross profit
      My estimate cost $500K for a hand built 1Mw plant at that time.

      This leaves $700K for undefined costs like a prolonged Pilot operation initially & the overhead costs & recovery for facilities & equipment investments. This price would decline overtime.

      At This Point In Time, I think a 1Mw plant may reasonably be built for $250K, But That has no relevance to what it will be sold for. It will be What The Market Can Bear. That could be as much as 1 Million$.

      This is Business, There is Billion$ needed to expand operations & you make it while you can. Once competition arrives, this opportunity ends. However, At this point, even competition will be what the market can bear. Demand will outstrip the benefits of competition for some time.

  • bkrharold

    I think you grossly underestimate the cost of fossil fuel and its transportation. With LENR, a few pounds of nickel powder, an amount that can be carried by one person, can produce the same amount of energy as hundreds of thousands of tons of coal, that would fill a miles long freight train. Even at $1million the ecat will be a bargain, considering the savings. If they gave away oil and coal, it would still be more expensive than LENR.

    • psi2u2

      Very interesting idea.

    • Omega Z

      To begin with, Corporations look to pay back periods or ROI & I think this is what Frank is getting at. Cheaper fuels would have an effect at the Corporate level.

      Cheap Oil will have some effect on the transport of coal & to some degree, the cost of extracting coal. I doubt it will have any effect on the cost of coal to power plant price.

      Cheap Oil will have an effect of drilling for N-gas, but little or any effect on sales price. Basically the price of Coal & N-gas will continue to be supply/demand.

      Cheap Oil itself also wont have a negative impact to the E-cat competitiveness as it is primarily a transportation fuel. To the Contrary, It would enable the E-cat to be built cheaper.

      As Oil is a major contributor to the extraction & transport cost of Raw Materials & to a lesser extent, the processing of these raw materials, The E-cat and all that entails(Boilers/exchangers & such) will be cheaper to manufacture.

      As to the Original 1.5 Million$ price tag. “Call it- At That Point In Time.”
      Customers Price $1.5 Million
      20% commission $300K dealers gross profit
      My estimate cost $500K for a hand built 1Mw plant at that time.

      This leaves $700K for undefined costs like a prolonged Pilot operation initially & the overhead costs & recovery for facilities & equipment investments. This price would decline overtime.

      At This Point In Time, I think a 1Mw plant may reasonably be built for $250K, But That has no relevance to what it will be sold for. It will be What The Market Can Bear. That could be as much as 1 Million$.

      This is Business, There is Billion$ needed to expand operations & you make it while you can. Once competition arrives, this opportunity ends. However, At this point, even competition will be what the market can bear. Demand will outstrip the benefits of competition for some time.

  • psi2u2

    Right.

  • psi2u2

    If LENR is real, I can’t see it paying a very good ROI, can you?

    • Omega Z

      Were looking at a 40/50 year transition. The pipeline will more then pay for itself & be utilized for it’s full 40 year life cycle.

      • psi2u2

        Possibly.

      • bkrharold

        The oil companies will reap the profits, and taxpayers will bear the environmental and health costs

    • bachcole

      Yes. Without LENR, I would be in favor of the Keystone pipeline. But with LENR, I don’t see why we should bother.

  • jousterusa

    An awful lot depends on whether Rossi designs a home E-Cat that can replace our connections to the grid. If he does, he will be rich beyond imagining and consumers will be more affluent than ever. If not, the E-Cat will remain a thing primarily of interest to manufacturers and other juice-intensive industrial customers. Someone will fill the residential vaccuum – Brillouin, perhaps, or BlackLight Power – and interest in the E-Cat will quickly fade. Meanwhile. Industrial Heat LLC feels to me like a man who walks around afraid of stepping on his own toes. They need to get out of Raleigh and into New York.

    • psi2u2

      I doubt Rossi has given up the idea of the home devices. I think he just got a good lesson in how to actually achieve that end goal. I bet he’s right that only significant service in industry can pave the way to home units. Until that has happened, at least in the US, home units will not be approved because of the “nuclear” in “N.” But, by all means, let’s have multiple companies – there will be, it seems, many niches.

  • LilyLover

    I think the two polar opposites will eventually co-exist: The GW-plants & the kW plants.
    At the MW plant level, the cost of operators and maintenance is a larger part of the whole, whereas at the GW scale, it’ll be a smaller fraction. Then, on the domestic front, once the verified safety is achieved, the costs could be lowered without necessarily having 95%+ reliability. For the unreliable E-Cats, they can always send a loner to fix the misbehaving cat and learn from it to produce a perfect one. Thus more-safe but less reliable small scale independence promoting E-Cat will be people’s to own and the Giant GW-plants will contently provide cheap electricity to the corporate grid. Symbolically as well as wired-ly holding a grasp over the corporate grid and altruistically and cheaply free-ing the genral populace.

    To note the fact that prices are falling because of E-Cat also implies that in the absence of E-Cat the prices may rise again. The wise-men have concluded that E-Cat cannot be unduly delayed, hence the cause of an action cannot be detached from the effect of the very cause. Hence, no matter how cheap the oil gets, it cannot beat the GW E-Cat hence, E-Cat viable. No matter how cheap the oil gets, it cannot compete with fuel-and-forget-for sixt months – car driven by E-Cat. Consumer leve convenience of always on / always working devices is far too important than the cost of oil. Say if your present cost of energy is 5% of your income, when it goes below, 1% of your income, you’ll rather maximize the convenience than save that last dollar. If oil becomes to cheap, finally, the politicians, in their last attempt to be seen as doing something, will begin to shun oil; by law or by implied opposition.

    Under either scenarios, the falling oil prices might slow the adoption of EVs on the road but not the E-Cat!!

    • Miles

      I still want an EV no matter what the oil price is.

  • LilyLover

    I think the two polar opposites will eventually co-exist: The GW-plants & the kW plants.
    At the MW plant level, the cost of operators and maintenance is a larger part of the whole, whereas at the GW scale, it’ll be a smaller fraction. Then, on the domestic front, once the verified safety is achieved, the costs could be lowered without necessarily having 95%+ reliability. For the unreliable E-Cats, they can always send a loner to fix the misbehaving cat and learn from it to produce a perfect one. Thus more-safe but less reliable small scale independence promoting E-Cat will be people’s to own and the Giant GW-plants will contently provide cheap electricity to the corporate grid. Symbolically as well as wired-ly holding a grasp over the corporate grid and altruistically and cheaply free-ing the genral populace.

    To note the fact that prices are falling because of E-Cat also implies that in the absence of E-Cat the prices may rise again. The wise-men have concluded that E-Cat cannot be unduly delayed, hence the cause of an action cannot be detached from the effect of the very cause. Hence, no matter how cheap the oil gets, it cannot beat the GW E-Cat hence, E-Cat viable. No matter how cheap the oil gets, it cannot compete with fuel-and-forget-for sixt months – car driven by E-Cat. Consumer leve convenience of always on / always working devices is far too important than the cost of oil. Say if your present cost of energy is 5% of your income, when it goes below, 1% of your income, you’ll rather maximize the convenience than save that last dollar. If oil becomes to cheap, finally, the politicians, in their last attempt to be seen as doing something, will begin to shun oil; by law or by implied opposition.

    Under either scenarios, the falling oil prices might slow the adoption of EVs on the road but not the E-Cat!!

    • Miles

      I still want an EV no matter what the oil price is.

  • BroKeeper

    The E-Cat’s evolution to its optimum energy output potential is inevitable once its energy density over any known chemical reaction become known to exceed a factor of six. This will make fossil fuels’ replacement assured. It’s just a matter of when.

    After news releases of the first factory installation (hopefully within a year) the down payment orders will start pouring in. This will initiate a huge cash flow for further R&D development for many diverse applications and increase assembly lines to keep up with demand and low cost. The LENR production upward exponential curve will mirror the inverse exponential curve of fossil fuels. No amount of petroleum price cuts will compensate for a million to one ratio of stored energy especially with cost, size and convenience factors thus pricing itself out of business. Who knows perhaps this may carry over to other industries? Think of the never replaceable ‘Forever Ready’ battery.

  • Brokeeper

    The E-Cat’s evolution to its optimum energy output potential is inevitable once its energy density over any known chemical reaction become known to exceed a factor of six. This will make fossil fuels’ replacement assured. It’s just a matter of when.

    After news releases of the first factory installation (hopefully within a year) the down payment orders will start pouring in. This will initiate a huge cash flow for further R&D development for many diverse applications and increase assembly lines to keep up with demand and low cost. The LENR production upward exponential curve will mirror the inverse exponential curve of fossil fuels. No amount of petroleum price cuts will compensate for a million to one ratio of stored energy especially with cost, size and convenience factors thus pricing itself out of business. Who knows perhaps this may carry over to other industries? Think of the never replaceable ‘Forever Ready’ battery.

  • AdrianAshfield

    From what I read, the low price of oil is for political reasons. The US told Saudi not to cut production in order to punish both Russia and Iran. Saudi was happy to oblige, thinking this will reduce investment in fracking in the US, which produces slightly more expensive oil. So Saudi was delighted to attack the competition.
    Not that I don’t think LENR will drop the price of oil, but just that LENR is still not believed and isn’t well enough known to force this change in oil price.. It will be years before it drops the price of gasoline.

  • Observer

    My main concern is the falsifiability of the hypothesis of man made global climate change / global warming. If there is no way of proving a hypothesis false than it does not qualify as a hypothesis.

    • bkrharold

      So you will only believe in AGW if someone can prove that it is false?

  • Observer

    It will all come down to COPs and Robber Barons.

    • psi2u2

      lol.

  • Observer

    It will all come down to COPs and Robber Barons.

    • psi2u2

      lol.

  • LilyLover

    In that aspect, I commend Rossi’s vision of Starting at MW level to prove viability and industrial certification for GW level and by the time the leaked E-Cat permeates through the third World, using the invisible hand to mend the ways of the UL and CE to permit domestic cats.

    • bkrharold

      They have not studied cold fusion and published scientific papers in journals for peer review, to support the claim that cold fusion is bunk. Climate scientists have done the research and published their results, which support AGW.

  • LilyLover

    In that aspect, I commend Rossi’s vision of Starting at MW level to prove viability and industrial certification for GW level and by the time the leaked E-Cat permeates through the third World, using the invisible hand to mend the ways of the UL and CE to permit domestic cats.

  • LilyLover

    Funny thing: Instead of Andrea Rossi, I read “Nokola Tesla said in the…”, so, looks like in my subconscious, Rossi has taken the place of Tesla.

  • LilyLover

    To fight and resist is one ineffective way against which brutal power or
    money-power can be used. But take a 90 degree turn, redefine humanity
    and then – no one knows how to resist for there is nothing to resist. In this
    new direction – behave morally, reward the best, stay unafraid, and be
    abundant in love and matter. That is effective way.

  • LilyLover

    To fight and resist is one ineffective way against which brutal power or
    money-power can be used. But take a 90 degree turn, redefine humanity
    and then – no one knows how to resist for there is nothing to resist. In this
    new direction – behave morally, reward the best, stay unafraid, and be
    abundant in love and matter. That is effective way.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    China will be the first to use LENR because they want clean air.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
    40:30 min

  • Alan DeAngelis

    China will be the first to use LENR because they want clean air.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
    40:30 min

  • Alain Samoun

    Some numbers to illustrate the problem for the supporters of fossil energy:
    According to the results of the Lugano test:
    ” the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ]”
    Knowing that 1 gallon of automotive gasoline = 131,760,000 joule ~ 130 MJ~

    The Lugano test has produced the energy equivalent of about 50 Gallons or ~ 200 liters of gasoline.

    With only 1g of metal mixture – about the weight of half US cent coin – Probably less than 1 dollar of Nickel+ small amount of other material. So from this result, to be competitive with an E-Cat the gallon of gasoline should be 1/50 ~ 2 cents.

    Good luck to Russia,Saudi Arabia and… Exxon 😉

    Beside, burning 50 gallons of gasoline produce 1,000 pounds of ‘anthropogenic’ CO2
    If you can’t believe it, see: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm

    • psi2u2

      It seems we should have greater sympathy for the people of Russia and Saudia Arabia than for Exxon. At least, that’s how I see it. The oil companies may have to adapt fast or become dinosaurs.

      • Alain Samoun

        Actually I don’t have any sympathy for the Russian oligarchs,the Saudis princes and the CEO/investors of Exxon and other oil cy. I make a difference between the rulers and the people of the country/company they govern.

        • psi2u2

          I agree. Notice I said “the people.” I was not referring to the oligarchs or princes!

    • MasterBlaster7

      Yah. The Lugano test ran a hobbled hot cat. The cop was arround 3. I think the fully functioning and operational hot cats are (best guess) going to be around cop 12. And thats just how they are designing them. I remember Rossi getting cop of 200 in his stress testing. So I think maybe we can safely make that 2 cents….a 1/2 cent.

  • Alain Samoun

    Some numbers to illustrate the problem for the supporters of fossil energy:
    According to the results of the Lugano test:
    ” the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ]”
    Knowing that 1 gallon of automotive gasoline = 131,760,000 joule ~ 130 MJ~

    The Lugano test has produced the energy equivalent of about 50 Gallons or ~ 200 liters of gasoline.

    With only 1g of metal mixture – about the weight of half US cent coin – Probably less than 1 dollar of Nickel+ small amount of other material. So from this result, to be competitive with an E-Cat the gallon of gasoline should be 1/50 ~ 2 cents.

    Good luck to Russia,Saudi Arabia and… Exxon 😉

    Beside, burning 50 gallons of gasoline produce 1,000 pounds of ‘anthropogenic’ CO2
    If you can’t believe it, see: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm

    • psi2u2

      It seems we should have greater sympathy for the people of Russia and Saudia Arabia than for Exxon. At least, that’s how I see it. The oil companies may have to adapt fast or become dinosaurs.

      • Alain Samoun

        Actually I don’t have any sympathy for the Russian oligarchs,the Saudis princes and the CEO/investors of Exxon and other oil cy. I make a difference between the rulers and the people of the country/company they govern.

        • psi2u2

          I agree. Notice I said “the people.” I was not referring to the oligarchs or princes!

    • MasterBlaster7

      Yah. The Lugano test ran a hobbled hot cat. The cop was arround 3. I think the fully functioning and operational hot cats are (best guess) going to be around cop 12. And thats just how they are designing them. I remember Rossi getting cop of 200 in his stress testing. So I think maybe we can safely make that 2 cents….a 1/2 cent.

  • mytakeis

    Maybe it all comes down to greed and fear. Greed to squeeze as much profit out as soon as possible, and fear that oil will be made obsolete as soon as possible. The uncertainty of a proven ‘free’ energy producer, the workings of which are not clear, could spook the otherwise stoic powers of energy production. Yeah for LENR, they do not know what you really are!

    • Agreed. It’s really quite simple. Imagine the Saudis reading the Lugano Report and their conclusion is… lets say 50/50 oil will be more or less obsolete in ten years … what would they do? Sell as much as they can now at current prices with superior margins and at the same time knock out high cost competition… or keep competition in the market with low volumes taking the risk of sitting there with an endless supply of noprofit oil in ten years. Hard choice? Maybe, allthough I don’t think it’s 50/50, more like 99.9/0.1… These guys are paid enough to know (as Goldman Sachs are, http://sifferkoll.se) and it’s somewhat important to them… Greed or not.

      • bachcole

        Even though I don’t agree with you, yet, I gave you a plus. You could be right, and I guarantee that you will eventually be right. I am just not very sure yet about them knowing about it.

        • Thanks! Well, of course it’s only a hypothesis. They know about though. They might not believe it, but they know about it. For sure Statoil is, inviting Brillouin and some of the Lugano testers to Norway. So it’s a probability game with, as you say, some unknowns.

  • HS61AF91

    Maybe it all comes down to greed and fear. Greed to squeeze as much profit out as soon as possible, and fear that oil will be made obsolete as soon as possible. The uncertainty of a proven ‘free’ energy producer, the workings of which are not clear, could spook the otherwise stoic powers of energy production. Yeah for LENR, they do not know what you really are!

    • Agreed. It’s really quite simple. Imagine the Saudis reading the Lugano Report and their conclusion is… lets say 50/50 oil will be more or less obsolete in ten years … what would they do? Sell as much as they can now at current prices with superior margins and at the same time knock out high cost competition… or keep competition in the market with low volumes taking the risk of sitting there with an endless supply of noprofit oil in ten years. Hard choice? Maybe, allthough I don’t think it’s 50/50, more like 99.9/0.1… These guys are paid enough to know (as Goldman Sachs are, http://sifferkoll.se) and it’s somewhat important to them… Greed or not.

      • bachcole

        Even though I don’t agree with you, yet, I gave you a plus. You could be right, and I guarantee that you will eventually be right. I am just not very sure yet about them knowing about it.

        • Thanks! Well, of course it’s only a hypothesis. They know about though. They might not believe it, but they know about it. For sure Statoil is, inviting Brillouin and some of the Lugano testers to Norway. So it’s a probability game with, as you say, some unknowns.

  • fritz194

    If you bear in mind that conventional power plants are planned investments with a pay-off within 10 years and a planned operation period of maybe 40 years – I think that the major impact of lenr technology would concern investment strategy in this area – as well as strategic decisions concerning the power grid. Additional – there is the risk of changing fuel prices and necessary emission control. Even if alternative energy has a similar investment scheme – there is no risk concerning the latter parameters. The dramatically development of the oil price is just an economic war of Saudi Arabia against selected oil producers. Because of the advent of shale gas in US – there was a severe change of coal price with the consequence that russian gas driven european power plants cannot be operated economically. With a low oil price, the returns of fracking industry will decline and the price of russian gas will lower with the side effect that use of coal will decline….And this happens on daily business without any notification and time to respond properly. Once accepted, LENR will be the perfect investment and becalm the world order. Maybe then will be a virtual war about information (if not has already started).

  • fritz194

    If you bear in mind that conventional power plants are planned investments with a pay-off within 10 years and a planned operation period of maybe 40 years – I think that the major impact of lenr technology would concern investment strategy in this area – as well as strategic decisions concerning the power grid. Additional – there is the risk of changing fuel prices and necessary emission control. Even if alternative energy has a similar investment scheme – there is no risk concerning the latter parameters. The dramatically development of the oil price is just an economic war of Saudi Arabia against selected oil producers. Because of the advent of shale gas in US – there was a severe change of coal price with the consequence that russian gas driven european power plants cannot be operated economically. With a low oil price, the returns of fracking industry will decline and the price of russian gas will lower with the side effect that use of coal will decline….And this happens on daily business without any notification and time to respond properly. Once accepted, LENR will be the perfect investment and becalm the world order. Maybe then will be a virtual war about information (if not has already started).

  • psi2u2

    Radio speaker here is saying that Russians are convinced that the drop in prices is driven by a US plot to ruin Putin…..interesting rumor.

  • psi2u2

    Radio speaker here is saying that Russians are convinced that the drop in prices is driven by a US plot to ruin Putin…..interesting rumor.

    • bachcole

      Given the fact that the “hand” that is causing the drop in oil prices is invisible, everyone is going to imagine that their very favorite enemy is doing it. If one is a Muslim, then it must be the Jews who are doing it. If one is a radical feminist, then it must be men who are doing it. If one is a vegan, then the meat eaters must be doing it. If one Krivit, then Rossi must be doing it. If one is a right-winger, then the left-wingers must be doing it. If one is a left-winger, then the right-wingers must be doing it. You get the picture. (:->)

      • HS61AF91

        like for every faction thee is a … etc.

        • bachcole

          ??? I was thinking along the lines of what Adam Smith said about the invisible hand of the marketplace.

          • psi2u2

            Krivit may be correct. 😉

  • mytakeis

    like for every faction thee is a … etc.

  • Kenneth Brunstein

    For over a hundred years American money was used to trade with oil. A few years ago it was handed to China. I dont think we would just hand it to them. I think that America has been planning to move to a better technology. China all along thinks that they got the upper hand but in the backround America is laughing saying we dont need it lets tax the heck out of it for the next decade,so when we transition we will not suffer any types of set backs. Now China is playing games with coal to send fear that they will make matters worse, but really the are smoking the snake out of the hole. Ontario shut down their last coal plant and is making it illegal to have coal plants, and I remember reading that Black light power was working with Ontario. I think what is happening is that so many inventors and scientist are coming up with so many ideas thats there are to many to silence. Its a snow ball rolling down the hill and its so big now try to get in the way and it will crush you. All these wonderfull ideas have a place in the world Rossi’s E-cat, Mill’s suncell, Alek’s Split-Flux Transformer, SHT device tht makes a crap ton of hydrogen from 500 watts, The platinum invest group magnetic generator it goes on and on. I have been watching this for the last ten years and believe me its getting very close to the day when we graduate from cave man logic into space age logic. We just have to deal with greedy people who dont even care about their own family.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Bob Greenyer
  • Albert D. Kallal

    As I stated several times, the issue really centers on COP. As the COP rises above the 10 range, then it unlikely any kind of fuel source can compete with the e-cat.
    And with higher COP’s comes the ability to easy generate electricity. However such a heat engine needs to be VERY reliable, and that quite much rules out a steam engine (they are too complex with all the water systems and corrosion issues).

    As pointed out several times (and by Bob n this thread), that a sterling engine with ultra low maintains is really the ticket here.

    Recall that most nuclear reactors built in the USA occurred quite long ago during DIRT cheap oil/energy prices. If the relative COP’s are in the 10+ range for LENR systems, then generating electricity on-site with this heat source is practical. So I don’t see why “on-site” generating of electricity will not occur, especially with COP’s over 10.

    A “magic” combo will be combining something like Dean Kamens’s sterling system (Beacon 10) + a small ecat. Such a setup will provide all your hot water, all your home heating and your electricity. As a result, you not need an external supply of electricity – only an enough battery to start the system – much like staring your car.

    So the REAL issue is what COP’s we can expect from these LENR systems – as they climb above the 10+ range, then I don’t see much of a challenge or problem, even with low oil prices.

    I wonder if Rossi is aware or has considered something like Kamen’s Becon 10 co-generator?

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Albert D. Kallal

    As I stated several times, the issue really centers on COP. As the COP rises above the 10 range, then it unlikely any kind of fuel source can compete with the e-cat.
    And with higher COP’s comes the ability to easy generate electricity. However such a heat engine needs to be VERY reliable, and that quite much rules out a steam engine (they are too complex with all the water systems and corrosion issues).

    As pointed out several times (and by Bob n this thread), that a sterling engine with ultra low maintains is really the ticket here.

    Recall that most nuclear reactors built in the USA occurred quite long ago during DIRT cheap oil/energy prices. If the relative COP’s are in the 10+ range for LENR systems, then generating electricity on-site with this heat source is practical. So I don’t see why “on-site” generating of electricity will not occur, especially with COP’s over 10.

    A “magic” combo will be combining something like Dean Kamens’s sterling system (Beacon 10) + a small ecat. Such a setup will provide all your hot water, all your home heating and your electricity. As a result, you not need an external supply of electricity – only an enough battery to start the system – much like staring your car.

    So the REAL issue is what COP’s we can expect from these LENR systems – as they climb above the 10+ range, then I don’t see much of a challenge or problem, even with low oil prices.

    I wonder if Rossi is aware or has considered something like Kamen’s Becon 10 co-generator?

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • psi2u2

    Krivit may be correct. 😉

  • psi2u2

    I think the performance standards are unmatched in the industry. That is not from careful comparison, but it is my impression from what I have read. Farmers in many traditional hemp states like Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee are agitating for legal hemp and when that happens I think we will see a whole re-energization of our rural economies as a result. It is separate but obviously related to the larger question of cannabis – the very fact that the industrial (no THC) varieties were also made illegal in 1937 suggests that hemp itself, drug aside, was the actual enemy – its continued production threatened to derail the widespread use of nylon (and probably other plastics) and paper pulp. It is cheaper than and in some respects superior to these modern industrial products.

  • roseland67

    Oil has no impact on LENR.
    The issue is oil has a real value, right now,
    x amount of oil = x amount of energy, today.
    If LENR is commercialized, it will too,
    but until then, oil has zero impact on LENR.
    Now, the opposite will be fun to watch play out,
    what impact will LENR have on oil?

  • psi2u2

    Hi Bachole, sorry I don’t think I have anything better on that particular topic than what you can find using google yourself. There is a real resurgence in interest in it, largely due to the delayed response to Jack Herer’s *The Emperor has No Clothes,* original written in the 1980s or so.

    Although the book contains some errors, I think the basic thesis is solid – to wit, that the primary reason why cannabis was made illegal originally was to cut hemp out of production, since it competed very favorably with both nylon and wood pulp. Some people like to reject this idea as a “conspiracy theory,” which, given the evidence, strikes me as a bit affected.

    It seems that, fortunately, the country has started to see the light both on reform of psychoactive cannabis and hemp. Its the same plant, but grows in many varied ways, and the hemp strains have very little active ingredient and put their energy into producing very large quantities of highly versatile pulp. The plant has been grown, both for its psychoactive and its practical uses, for well over 5,000 years. It would be a great boon to the country to bring it back as an industrial commodity, which seems to be happening.

  • psi2u2

    I believe that it has many applications in which it can competitively produce superior products, including clothing, paper, and building products.

  • bkrharold

    I find that encouraging. Even though we do not agree about AGW we can at least agree about LENR.

  • bkrharold

    I have believed in LENR since I heard of the first press meeting by Pons and Fleischman. I refused to believe these two professional scientists, experts in their field, were incapable of doing simple heat measurements accurately.
    In the same way, I am absolutely convinced by the majority of climate scientists support of AGW. The evidence is in, there is no longer any doubt.

  • more than that, IPCC itself have explained that AGW could only have starte about 1950… rest is ad-hoc.

    I started by trusting IPCC then I have seen their methods, and strangely they look like the one of fraudsters. Some skeptics are not bette than warmist however. I advise to read Judith Curry, and those she trust. She was in the IPCC.

    note that like in LENR, the 97% consensus is mostly based
    1- on evaporation of the dissenters who are fired, rejected, pushed to resign, not rehired…
    2- on terror against those who may think about dissenting (you need a job : follow the line). When you hear a retired skeptic who says, I cannot ask interns to help me or their career will be ruined, you know what is real academic “openness”.
    3- on passive conformism and confidence (my best friend told me, the boss said, the Nobel said)

    today the way the hiatus is managed is worse than the worse than the skeptic accuse use to do, and even worse of what they do.
    they produce papers to justify, which is debunked few month after, then find another excuse…

    the data are even more tweaked than MIT LENr experiments, with past cooling down every year, with bias of temperature increasing every year.
    There is huge cherrypicking on what can be still questionable, but for which they hide all the questions…

    I don’t even know if it is erroneous, it is simply corrupted science, science of groupthink.

    the Benabou theory of groupthink match exactly the process we observe with global warming story…
    terror agins dissenters, huge investments, denial of evidences, cherrypicking, delusion trickle down from elite to bottom…

    this is LENR denial in worse.

    anyway it is solved.

    however after discussing about similar groupthink and group delusion like Jihadist , a specialist in politics and sociology explained me that once brains are filled with so much delusion, it is very hard to make them change with evidence. The victims will imagine that any opposed evidence is a conspiracy of the Evil …

    see how some imagine LENR will make the planet awful, will pollute with waste heat, or destroy oxygen, or make the planet melt down… just because they want to believe.

    lost generation.

    • bkrharold

      Not that I have any reason to doubt the IPCC, but there are many more worldwide scientific organizations that hold the opinion that climate change has been caused by human action.

      Here is a list of 200:-

      http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

      There are several global warming skeptic organizations. none of them are scientific, They are all right funded “think tanks”
      Here is a link to a page describing these organizations:-

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VJj4914AA

      American Enterprise Institute

      The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1]

      AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]

      Americans for Prosperity

      Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7]

      While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8] These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.

      AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11]

      Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]

      American Legislative Exchange Council

      The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.

      ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]

      Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

      From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.

      BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]

      Cato Institute

      Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato’s website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24]

      Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]

      Competitive Enterprise Institute

      The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.” [31]

      CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36]

      Heartland Institute

      While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37]

      Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39]

      Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43]

      Heritage Foundation

      While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]

      Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]

      Institute for Energy Research

      The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.

      IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55].

      Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

      The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56]

      The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60]

  • bkrharold

    Climate Scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. Consensus is reached after a majority reach the same conclusion. This is a process, accomplished by studying the available evidence, observing trends and making predictions, based on current understanding of the factors governing the climate. They publish their results in peer reviewed journals, which are analyzed, and either accepted or rejected. When the vast majority of scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals support the same hypothesis, it constitutes a consensus.
    Scientists have no opinions, and believe in nothing. That is true of all true scientists. They reach logical conclusions based on objective measurements, and current scientific knowledge.

  • bkrharold

    If that is not enough here is a link to a graph published on the NASA website. It has two graphs going back 800,000 years comparing average global temperature variation vs carbon dioxide levels.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

    Here is their conclusion:-

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when people first started burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. This means that for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 387 of them are now carbon dioxide—the highest concentration in two million years. Methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion in 1750 to 1,774 parts per billion in 2005, the highest concentration in at least 650,000 years.

  • bkrharold

    You are right, it is a waste of energy squabbling over AGW. Happy and prosperous New Year to you.

  • bkrharold

    As I was reading your response, it occurred to me that my Hebrew name is Zvi which means Ram. But you are right, it is a waste of energy and accomplishes nothing, fighting over AGW. I read a book called The power of Now, by Eckhart Tolle. He believes that our egos are the cause of much of the violence in the world. He thinks the ego is a fragile thing constructed from our mental energy. It pretends to be who we are. It is comprised of our beliefs and prejudices. It must protect itself at all costs, and will argue and fight to be right, and make the other person wrong. This is how it gets its energy.

  • bkrharold

    I had not heard of Meher Baba. The Wikipedia article describes his life works and be!iefs. I was wondering who it is in the picture you use for your avatar. The ego is fun, until it is not. It can become more than tiresome. I have reached the conclusion, that the ego is an essential part of our journey here on earth. Rather than an obstacle, it can be a tool for self awareness. Yes you are certainly right about those treats that are so bad for us, but taste so good. I have been warned by my doctor, but sometimes yield to temptation.