Rossi on the E-Cat’s Power Density: 10 kW per Liter (Monty)

The following comment was posted by monty.

Rossi just wrote in his blog that they have a power densitiy of about 10kW per litre.

Seems like is still a bit behind a modern combustion engine…

Here’s the full comment from the Journal of Nuclear Physics in response to a question from Robert Curto who asked Rossi about how much it would cost to provide power for 97,000 homes. (The Solana solar power plant in Arizona, cost 2 billion dollars, covers 2,000 acres, provides power for 97,000 homes)

Robert Curto:
It depends in the place: in Sweden, for example, the demand of heat is much higher than in Southern Italy…
I can give you our power density: about 10 kW/l, plus the heat exchangers.
The costs will be known after a massive production will have been started. Potentially 100 $/kW.
Warm Regards,

  • bachcole

    I think that a chart showing price per kilowatt, kilowatt per volume, kilowatt per weight, etc. for the E-Cat, solar, fission nuclear, ICE, a typical gas fired furnace, etc. would be very interesting. I leave it to the reader to actually impliment this idea. I have much more important things to do like pontificate. (:->)

    The price per household for the solar project mentioned is $20,618.56. This seems shocking. But, of course, if this is the upfront cost and the solar cells never degrade, and the ongoing cost is cheap, then this is a good price. In 30 years, this would come to $687.29 per year, or $57.27 per month.

    It still doesn’t seem all that great compared to what we can expect from Rossi.

    • Yea, that is great, especially on those nights when the Sun is directly overhead. But wait, …that never happens. So we will use coal power or nuclear power at night. So now we have two systems to build, the solar system and the back-up system. Wind power is not continuous or reliable. A nuclear system cannot be throttled up and down, so maybe we use will use a natural gas system as a back-up. That is expensive and a cost duplication, but if we want our solar dream, we will all have to pay. The solar system will lose allot of energy through long transmission lines as well. Our costly solar plan will steal money we need for our food, our rent, our kids education, our healthcare, our savings. We will spend less on other things and that will kill jobs, which means lower tax revenues and more budget deficits.

      Maybe this solar dream world we want comes at a very high price?

      • Anon2012_2014

        Fission Nuclear can be throttled on the scale of hours. If there is enough pumped hydro storage capacity around to allow the nuclear plants to come and go off line, it could work combined with ubiquitous solar and wind. It could allow us to stretch natural gas to say 20% of current consumption for hundreds of years. We can even do hydrogen storage from electrolysis at a large cost of efficiency.

        Finally, there is nothing to say that the nuclear once running can’t be “shunted” to say a large external thermal heat exchanger (i.e. the river or ocean its built on) while the control rods start to quench the reaction.

        I don’t like the long lived wasted from nuclear, but if it is all we have in 200 years, I am sure we can get by.

        • Zack Iszard

          Thorium molten salt FTW. The fuel can be reprocessed to minimize radioisotope contamination of the environment; the molten active salt design can’t “melt down” (it’s already molten in normal operation), and thorium is much more abundant than uranium. Molten salt reactors are scalable, and the infrastructure shift of adopting local reactors for electricity will be very beneficial for implementing future reactor designs.

    • Warthog

      Ah, but solar cells in the real world “do” degrade.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      The solar collector give electricity only, and in Sun only. Storage means for night and cloudy days likely adds considerable to cost (and in fact dominates total cost). Also heat in winter needs much more electricity or needs gas or oil, so total energy cost is not covered by solar supplied power alone at the level given. A combination of solar cells, batteries, and gas heat is a reasonable compromise, but that is not any better than present gas and electric costs. Solar and/or wind alone would never be a practical and economical choice unless very cheap large scale storage is developed.

      • Bernie777

        I put solar on my house in 1978, I think I did it to get a tax credit. It worked, and had a lot of fun playing with the system, creating 25% of our hot water. (:

      • Omega Z

        There dirty little secret. Your utility bill is going to quadruple over 20 years.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    I will not feed the troll, I will not feed the troll, I will not feed the ignorant troll….

    To anyone really interested in simple facts:

    “One of the principal advantages of concentrated solar thermal (CST) is that thermal energy storage can be provided efficiently,[11] so that output can be provided after the sun goes down, and output can be scheduled to meet demand requirements.[12] The Solana Generating Station is designed to provide six hours of energy storage.”


    • 6 hours? That means from 5 PM, when the Sun is low on the horizon, to 11 PM? What happens after 11 PM? What happens on a cloudy day? At what cost? At what real world efficiency? If consumers have to directly pay for solar, how many consumers will buy it when they can get natural gas electricity for a fraction of the cost? The costs are hidden in subsidies, so consumers don’t know how much they are actually paying for this folly. And where can we build such giant plants? Can we build one outside of New York City, Chicago, Portland Maine? California has some of the highest electricity rates in the nation because of the solar and wind energy fiasco. That costs jobs and lowers our standard of living, and for what? Solar and wind reduce CO2 emissions to such a tiny, insignificant extent that those emissions saving could not possibly have even the slightest noticeable effect on our weather. Renewable energy is an irrational religion based on false hopes and impossible dreams. Bad math skills, tunnel vision, plus intellectual dishonesty will not save the world, only speed its destruction, and that has already happened to counties like Spain and Greece that spent way too much money on the solar energy fad. Only rich counties like Germany, Denmark, and the USA can afford to throw money down a storm drain, which is what renewable energy is all about.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        what happens after 11 pm? peak demand goes way down thats what.
        Renewable energy is an irrational religion based on false hopes and impossible dreams…? no one ever said that renewables were the entire answer…

        • Bernie777

          Like Rossi has been preaching, it is going to be a combination of power sources for a long, long time.

          • Omega Z

            No, “half cubic meter” it’s the displacement of 100 individual reactor
            modules packed together verses the actual volume of a single reactor.
            10Kwh is 10Kwh high or low temp.

            I think Rossi is still referring to the steel flanged Hot cat size(About
            1 liter). IMHO, The Hot cat dog bone is just used for research
            purposes. It is not the end product.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Look, 10 kW per liter is correct to within an order of magnitude if the machine is not completely molten and a hot cat. This probably includes the fuel assembly and the external heater.

    The true answer doesn’t matter that much as long as a very hot machine can be built that can have heat energy extracted from it with a COP > 2 and better >6.

    I am still waiting for some independent verification — MFMP is 100 times more credible than the strictly limited Rossi demonstrations.

    Even if Rossi or his people have built something that works, I think that Rossi the communicator doesn’t do much in the way of fact checking when he responds on JONP — it is whatever he feels like writing back.

    • Redford

      MFMP is one replication of Rossi. There are already two accounted for replications on Rossi. I don’t get your logic on this.

    • Omega Z

      Not clearly defined, The object of discussion is for home heating. That will be the Lt 10Kw E-cat.

      “It depends in the place: in Sweden, for example, the demand of heat is much higher than in Southern Italy…”

      Whether an E-cat is cost/benefit effective will depend on many variables. If your replacing a N-gas high efficiency furnace, you really need a COP>10. Obviously, if your using electric heat, anything over COP>3 may(?) suffice and also hot water heating.

      Ultimately, It depends on geography & what you’re existing means of home heating comes from.
      The 10Kw Lt E-cat is much better suited for home heating. The Hot cat would be problematic & would require an insulated storage tank system to work properly.

      • Anon2012_2014

        If Rossi or Parkhomov has a COP 3, 3 kW unit, the efficiency will be refined to COP 6 within several years by someone and the world has changed.

        We are just looking for hard evidence of high power 3 COP LENR from ANYONE. This includes Rossi. The power density doesn’t effect the economics except for portable or transportation uses.

        • COP of 6 is just when they do not go in self-sustaining mode.
          If they go in self-sustaining mode it is near infinite
          Rossi already showed self sustaining mode before.

  • Ophelia Rump

    100 $/kW
    10kW unit = $1000.
    This is an excellent market entry price.

    • Omega Z

      Ophelia Rump

      They will need to obtain safety data to get UL certification. This can be done using the 1Mw Lt E-cat data collection.

      The Home Unit(Lt 10Kw E-cat) Rossi is talking about will be about the size of a desk top computer with input/output water connectors.. It’s intended to be installed as an inline unit in an existing boiler heating system as base heat & the existing boiler will supply peek demand as backup.

      Any other arrangement would require separate plumbing & exchanger or installed in an air handler setup for hot air heat.

      It will in fact be of minimal cost/benefit for those who already have a high efficiency Natural Gas furnace even with COP=10. A little more beneficial for those with propane. Much better if replacing electric heat or already have water heating system.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I do not understand, how do you reason it will be of minimal benefit?
        For $ 1000 I hook one up and cut my heating bill by 66%.
        What am I missing? Is there a hidden cost I missed?

        • Omega Z

          Yes Ophelia,
          You’re overlooking the characteristics of the E-cat. Note, There are several variables that will change to negative for the E-cat in the near future, But at the present-,

          Fact: The heat from the E-cat is cheaper then my high efficiency N-gas furnace. In Practice, My gas furnace is much cheaper to operate. It runs only when I need it according to the weather.

          The E-cat runs 24/7 & at present electrical costs, is about $150 to operate. My highest N-gas bill in extreme weather was $140. Last month gas bill was $60. $90 less then operating an E-cat.

          Had the Economy not tanked, I would have completed my home remodel & my highest N-gas bill would be less then $100 & likely half that on average.

          From fact sheets void of agenda propaganda, Wind/Solar can never be competitive with fossil fuels when all entailed is consolidated. Thus Government policy is to force Fossil fuel costs upward x2/x3 times. That’s how they will make them competitive. You will pay substantially more & learn to live with less. A lower standard of living.

          The above is important to know. Within just a few years, electrical rates will rise at least 40%. Then the E-cat will cost at least $200 a month to operate.

          Obviously, This will vary by geography & ones present energy source & some would benefit with an E-cat. There are additional expenditures one could make for adapting the technology, but that also reduces the cost/benefits.

          This technology is a gift to society, but if we don’t learn to use it wisely, we may find it just as costly as our current energy. We’ll have traded 1 ball & chain around our necks for another. You know the old saying, The more things change, the more they stay the same.

          Note, that many issues can be addressed, but it’s years from now. For most, 10Kw will be to much or to little at various times. Maybe combine a couple 2.5Kw’s, a 5Kw & a 10Kw staged use setup(20Kw total or whats required for the purpose). Thus providing for peek/minimum demand periods minimizing waste. Having Electricity supplied by a LENR power plant would also have a major impact. Still, years away.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I feel reasonable in believing that the device will be less expensive to run on demand. Rather than full time. I do not know of a reason that you cannot.

  • runningman97

    Well the highest achieved efficiency I’m aware of is nearly 45% for multi-junction concentrator cells. Until the late 70s when multi-junction cells were introduced the highest efficiencies were not too far from 10%. Anon2012_2014 isn’t far off.

    Saying that solar power has its limitations.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    The cost and duration of refills is a big issue. If a refill is needed every 8 months, that would be 30 refills in 20 years. If a service call and refill is $200 per 10 kW, that would add $6,000 per 10 kW over 20 years. This is much more than a capitol cost of $1,000 per 10 kW. Also a system cost for 10 kW of $1,000 seems way low for any system (plumbing, heat exchangers, etc.). If a method of electricity generation is included (probably Stirling cycle /generator), these add about $.03/ kW-hr over 20 years (still less than line cost, but need fairly high temperature source energy: 300 to 400 C would do). The lower output heat from the Stirling generator (70 to 150 C) could then be used for hot water and some home heating, or other uses. Another possibility to limit electric use would be to use air conditioners such as an absorption chiller or a Coolerado A/C.

    • Omega Z

      Absorption chillers are not cheap for A/C. To my knowledge no one at this time manufactures 1 smaller then a 5-ton system & cost about $30K plus installation cost. They also still require about 700 watts of electricity.

  • Bernie777

    Right, that is the big German “secret” it is called “conservation”.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Much better than the sun’s core. “At the center of the Sun, fusion power is estimated by models to be about 276.5 watts/m3. Despite its intense temperature, the peak power production density of the core overall is similar to an active compost heap.”

    • Germany needed to find a use for their silicon industry when they lost the technology race with the US for memories and CPUs.
      They pushed for solar panels.
      In fact, when their largest producer of solar panels went bust (thank China) they stopped subsidies to solar.

      All world is the same,

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland
    January 4th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    In November you mentioned that the current 1 MW E-Cat plant you are working on has a volume of reactors of half a cubic meter (500 liters of volume) — which would mean a power density of 2 kW per liter.
    Today you mention a power density of 10 kW per liter (excluding heat exchangers). Is this for a different system?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    January 5th, 2015 at 2:56 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Yes, the volume of the reactors has been reduced to about 1l/10kW.
    Warm Regards,

  • Bernie777

    bachcole… have to move out of that nuclear missile silo. (:

  • Zack Iszard

    I did some basic calculations to estimate. My favorite potential application of the E-Cat technology is automotive.

    TL;DR: Given the announced power density in this thread of 10 kW/L, an E-Cat-based electric drivetrain for a large freeway-capable passenger vehicle weighs less than 600 kg, comparable to modern gasoline-based systems. The E-Cat technology is already competitive in power density for automotive applications, and would be revolutionary in large transport vehicles such as buses and cargo trucks.

    An ideal configuration for cars involves immediate-delivery capacitors (for power) coupled to buffering batteries (to let the reactor warm up). This ideal configuration for any portable nuclear reactor (also works for thorium molten salt systems) is this energy flow: [Reactor] -(steam)-> [Steam turbine generator] -> [Battery bank] + [Capacitor bank] -> [Electric motors]. The mass of these systems can be estimated. 50 HP of generator continuous output (max) is completely sufficient for a large passenger vehicle to cruise at freeway speed. Assuming the heat exchanger setup is comparable to power plant efficiencies, steam turbines are roughly 30% efficient. 50 HP / 0.30 * 0.745 (kW per HP) = 124 kW. This reactor would occupy about 12.4 L of space. The reactor’s maximum density is likely to be less than that of the bulk of the fuel, Nickel; using this as an upper bound, the reactor here would weigh 12.4 L * 8.9 kg/L = 111 kg. Huge assumption for heat exchanger/turbine mass of not more than twice the reactor weight itself, 222 kg. This totals to 333 kg. Battery and capacitor banks for this purpose need not be heavier than about 50 kg, now a sum of 383 kg. Electric motors, one per wheel with the necessary drive linkage, would weigh about 50 kg each, for a total of 200 kg. The total mass of the drivetrain and energy system of this hypothetical vehicle as estimated here is 583 kg, which is comparable to the gasoline engine, transmission, and drive linkage of a modern SUV, and this is a liberal weight estimate. With modern or cutting-edge materials, this design could easily be reduced by 100 kg or more, for example by using EEStor’s capacitor technology to replace the battery bank. I must disclaim that I did not find actual mass numbers for most components, but instead I estimated based on several existing systems: 50 kg of batteries and capacitors is derived from 10% of the mass of the equivalent system in the original Tesla Roadster, for example.

    Given that Rossi seems to think the E-Cat power density will only increase from here, we may very well see high peak output reactor/generator systems developed for cars that completely crush the EV competition in a short number of years. Such a vehicle would have all of the intrinsic benefits of EVs but with *staggering range*. The reactor/generator system would replace much of the mass of batteries, with only a small bank to act as a buffer to provide quick-demand power as is needed in cars. An even more prominent usage of the E-Cat for transport would be to replace combustion systems in buses and cargo trucks, again to exploit the staggering range of a reactor-based electric drive. I personally would like to own an RV with such a system!

    Assuming the 1MW plant performs as hoped and makes mainstream announcement by the end of this new year, I expect luxury car makers (Mercedes-Benz, specifically, due to it’s early investment in EV systems) to have a reactor-driven luxury SUV or large car available by 2020; this company also has a market share in cargo trucks.

    • Alain Samoun

      ” thorium molten salt systems”

      Don’t forget that at the core of a thorium reactor there is an uranium fission reactor,I don’t think that you want this kind of reactor on the roads 😉

  • Alain Samoun

    According to the Lugano report, the hot cat tested there produced the equivalent net energy of 50 gallons of gasoline with 1g of fuel for 32 days
    50 gallons= ~ 200 liters 1g of Ni=~0.0001 liter