Rossi on Tesla Motors and Elon Musk: ‘We are in Contact’

A reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today shared with Rossi a link to Tesla Motors’ Powerwall technology, and suggested that the Tesla battery could be used as means of starting the E-Cat’s reactions, and also to store energy produced. And then asked: “Did you ever considered to start some kind of co-operation with Elon Musk?”

Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
May 7th, 2015 at 12:52 PM
Rafal Krych:
Very interesting as a storage of energy too.
We are in contact.
Warm Regards
A.R.

This is a typically brief response which could be interpreted in a wide range of ways. At one extreme it could simply mean that once upon a time there was an email exchange between someone at Industrial Heat and someone at Tesla; on the other extreme it could mean that they are talking regularly at the highest levels. One can only speculate, but it does seem likely that each organization is aware of the other’s existence, and there has been some level of communication.

At the recent product launch event for the Powerwall battery, Elon Musk referred to the sun as a ‘handy fusion reactor in the sky’ which produces ‘a ridiculous amount of energy’ — and the Powerwall and Powerpack battery systems are designed to use solar. There was no hint from Musk that he was thinking about another source of power (LENR) to charge his batteries. However he’s a smart man, and I would imagine that if there was a chance that LENR could be shown to be a more effective energy source, he would be interested in making modifications in his model.

In addition, Rossi has mentioned in the past that solar-powered E-Cats could work in certain circumstances, so there may be ways for Tesla/IH collaboration to take place using solar as the energy source to drive E-Cats.

I don’t think Rossi will elaborate on his statement about being in contact with Tesla — but as always he seems open to ideas that are presented to him by his readers.

  • pcarbonn

    From Mats Lewan’s book :

    A special business segment Rossi did not value much was venture capitalists. I had even heard a rumor that Carl Page, brother of Google co-founder Larry Page, had organized a meeting between Rossi and Elon Musk, super entrepreneur and founder of PayPal, Tesla Motors and SpaceX, but that Rossi had cancelled the meeting at short notice, reportedly irritating those involved. When I asked Rossi if it was true he didn’t remember any such meeting nor did he know who Elon Musk was. However, he said:

    “Some venture capitalist from California has contacted me but there is so much fraud in that industry—there are a lot of people talking about huge opportunities and availability, but then when you go into the concrete, you discover that there is a lot of fake. Then the concrete proposals are also so small that they don’t interest us. Sometimes someone has wanted to invest half a million dollars to see what happens, but you know, I already spent half a million dollars in research. We do not need them.”

    Apparently, IH was able to change Rossi’s mind…

    • I talked to Carl Page at ICCF and he confirmed this story. He also noted that Elon Musk was a very busy person, practically running two important companies, and that it was difficult to get his attention for other opportunities.

      • builditnow

        Mats, Carl Page at ICCF, that’s news worthy.
        LENR / Cold Fusion people are close to the key people in Google and Microsoft.
        Cracks in the concrete?

      • Julian Becker

        Dear Mats, do you know what role Carl Page has within the organization of his brother? How far is he involved with google? Could not find much about him.

  • e-dog

    I would love to know more about this.

    I dont think Elon Musk would be investing Billions of Bucks in his future “Gigafactory” especially if he seriously thought LENR would be an electric power supply rival in the intermediate future.

    Regarding the e-cat I am sure he would be in it, on top of it, all over it and know all about it… if he could. I am just guessing he knows as much as us and cant wait around for Mr Rossi to share the tech with the rest of the world. I honestly believe that Mr Musk would put his money behind a tech that could save the world.

    • tleach

      I was wondering about that for a long time… How can Musk be so confident that Lithium Ion batteries are going to be the only game in town for decades to come? Does that mean he’s completely discounting ultra capacitors and LENR and everything else?

      Then I realized that he’s building a giant, almost completely automated factory. My understanding is that most of the automation in that factory IS NOT specialized. That factory could be reconfigured to build almost anything. My theory is that he’s just using Lithium Ion batteries as an excuse to build the thing. Then he’ll use it to crank out a whole bunch profitable widgets, whatever those widgets end up being.

      • Cuthbert Allgood

        > Does that mean he’s completely discounting ultra capacitors and LENR and everything else?

        Ultracapacitors have poor energy density and the problem doesn’t look to be fixed on the horizon, and LENR doesn’t exist in any form, as far as the mainstream world is concerned (and, practically speaking, as the non-mainstream world is concerned since no one can get a working model).

        • It might be solved sooner than you think. EEStor achieved 351 Wh/L in 2013 with it’s ultra-capacitor technology as verified by Tescom.

          http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/eestor-inc-has-received-multiple-certifications-results-from-tescom-calibration-services-of-austin-texas-228085641.html

          unfortunately it leaked like a sieve. 🙁

          But if EEStor can achieve similar energy densities AND have low leakage then watch out!

          I actually think they have a good shot at it. They are now getting some help from some very qualified polymer experts from the University of Akron.

          Meanwhile their high voltage capacitor (not for storage) is about to take the world by storm.

          see more at http://www.eestor.us

          • Cuthbert Allgood

            > EEStor achieved 351 Wh/L in 2013 with it’s ultra-capacitor technology as verified by Tescom.

            That’s still only half the density of Li-ion (though, at least it’s within an order of magnitude…). There are also safety concerns about using supercapacitors in cars, since a collision could potentially damage the capacitor and cause a catastrophic discharge.

          • Not with EEStor’s product. You can drive a nail through it and there is no discharge.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Batteries are energy storage. E-Cat is not.

      • it store energy, but as fuel.
        no need of accumulators if you can produce on command.

        • US_Citizen71

          What happens when you want to bake a cake while cooking dinner, run the dishwasher and dry laundry on a a sub-zero night? Do you buy a big enough ‘E-Cat’ generator to handle this demand? Or supplement a generator with median power output with a battery?

          • it is a serious question.
            it depends on the cost of the kW of power installed, as LENR+turbine, or as battery.

            supercapacitors maybe an interesting choice if not too expensive.
            or else flywheel, pressurised steam or air…

            with cheap energy the old logic does not hold anymore. a battery is probably more expensive/heavy than the generator, per kW…

          • US_Citizen71

            Weight wouldn’t apply much when considering household use, but cost, simplicity, safety and reliability would. I think a battery or supercapacitor would likely be best depending on cost and useful lifespan.

          • Imposer

            Charge/drain charge/drain, this tesla battery and all else like it are inadequate for this application. How great I have an ecat powering my home for near free for near life but I have to replace my expensive limited cycle battery every few years. Nobody’s said anything about the match made in heaven. I’m talking about the unlimited cycle Vanadium Flow battery by Imergy.

          • builditnow

            AlanCo, I’m with you, Hot-Cat converted turbine, just dump excess heat if you don’t want it. Later refinements could very likely give more instant control over Hot-Cat heat output and be able to match the turbine output with the houses demands. A flywheel on the turbine shaft might be enough for instantaneous power changes.

            The very first version could have a gigafactory battery and a smaller Hot-Cat turbine setup, perhaps Rossi’s interest given the current slow control over the Hot-Cats.

          • Cuthbert Allgood

            > supercapacitors maybe an interesting choice if not too expensive. or else flywheel, pressurised steam or air…

            If those were viable portable energy storage, people would be using them already. There are a million uses for portable energy storage. That batteries are the only one in common use is significant.

    • Fyodor

      1. There are a lot of ways that this could play out between the E-Cat not working and everyone driving E-Cat cars in ten years.

      We could end up with a scenario where E-Cats are only stable enough to work in large groups (where some can be shut off) and/or with technician supervision. Or that the control systems have too large a fixed cost to be economical for smaller quantities. So you only see them in industrial or power generation settings.Or in ships. Or we could find out that they’re hard to mass produce reliably.

      2. The type of external combustion engines you’d need for an E-Cat car are still pretty expensive on a per KW basis and/or big and/or only economical at high KW. People have been trying to convert heat into work for a long time. There aren’t necessarily huge improvements on the horizon.

      I think that Dean Kamen has said that his big Stirling engine block thing, once mass produced, would cost about $1/W before advertising, profit, etc. So for the roughly 20KW you need to drive a small electric car, you’d be spending 20K just for the heat engine component. And the 10KW unit is far too large to fit in a car.

      A boiler/steam turbine is cheaper/smaller on a per KW basis, but only once you get into higher power levels.

      3. Cars are a particularly difficult use/economic case because you need a lot of power and you usually something like 8 hours a week of use over which to amortize costs, as opposed to shipping or power generation, when you can amortize the capital costs over near constant usage.

      4. Battery prices have dropped and continue to drop aggressively. There are some promising improvements that are probably farther along to industrialization than the E-cat.It may be that by the time an E-Cat car is on the horizon it will be cheaper to have batteries than a cold fusion engine.

      5. Musk’s Gigafactory will only produce enough batteries for 500K cars/yr. So he’s hardly all-in on everyone using electric cars.

      Global fuel and energy consumption are a multi-trillion dollar/yr industry. Lots of room for lots of different solutions.

  • Brokeeper

    Rossi could have a working high efficient heat-to-electric conversion domestic E-Cat prototype (Powerwall) unless it is for steam turbine generated power plants needing battery storage.

  • Fyodor

    I think that Musk is probably interested in a lot of emerging technologies. I wouldn’t read too much into this.

    • Imposer

      I think, I think, I think……. I love you guys, always thinking, never knowing

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    For now I think “we are in contact” means “we have sent an email inquiry”

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    For now I think “we are in contact” means “we have sent an email inquiry”

    • August

      I agree. We should stop working so much with our imagination and keep our feet to the ground.

  • Steven Irizarry

    cars with a a range of several thousand miles that positively makes gas powered cars look mediocre to terrible…think tesla is gonna have a google like monopoly on the auto-industry if this goes well. since the cost of those cars will be super-low

    • Warthog

      What car…..I want an E-cat powered motor home!

      • Steven Irizarry

        and you will…with compact fusion Tesla no longer has to be limited with small cars

        • builditnow

          Think ahead to self flying cars

        • the model s is not small

  • builditnow

    Elon Musk has deliberately stated, within the last year or so, that when he is talking about fusion, it’s not Cold Fusion. He could likely be getting poor advice from his physics buddies. As far as his Gigafactory is concerned, an unconfirmed story is that it will produce batteries at half the price of any other manufacturer, so, at that price, it seems like a good business bet regardless.

    When someone shows Elon a working miniature Cold Fusion turbine generator setup, he will quickly install them in the Tesla electric cars, giving them unlimited range and a massive economic advantage. The turbine could initially go in the “frunk”, the spare empty space in the front. This could be the quickest and easiest conversion to a Cold Fusion powered car.
    Initially Cold Fusion converted electric cars could boost battery sales. Later there could be less demand for batteries as Cold Fusion vehicle power systems are further refined.

    Given Musk’s behavior, it’s likely that Rossi “being in contact” is contacting their sales department to buy some batteries without Musk’s or any high level management involvement.

    • Steven Irizarry

      how the hell would you know

    • Cuthbert Allgood

      > Elon Musk has deliberately stated, within the last year or so, that when he is talking about fusion, it’s not Cold Fusion. He could likely be getting poor advice from his physics buddies.

      It’s not “poor advice” until something actually exists that’s reliably reproducible and that physicists can actually test. I think a lot of people are assuming LENR is a proven concept. It’s not. We’re all here because we hope it’s real, but it still pretty much lives in fantasy world. I hope it leaves that world and enters the real one…

      • builditnow

        The science behind LENR is proven to at least 99.9999% or more certain than you exist. Go check out all the research done by top labs and top scientists, lenr.org is a good place to start.

        What we are all waiting for is LENR+, that being LENR producing energy useful for all of us in the form of heat and electricity.
        For that you can check the slide show at http://www.slideshare.net/tylervan/lenr
        also read
        http://lenrftw.net/are_lenr_devices_real.html#.U65yGEASZmM

        After reading all that, come back with you opinion and the I’ll give your mine for LENR+

        • Cuthbert Allgood

          > The science behind LENR is proven to at least 99.9999% or more certain than you exist. [snip various links]

          I know all of everything you linked to, but it all means absolutely nothing to mainstream science (and me, for that matter) until there’s an actual experiment described such that any physicist can perform it and have some reasonable chance of a reproducible result. Saying that LENR is proven to a “99.9999%” certainty is absurd, to say the least.

          Why do you think that Russian physicist whatsisname is being watched so closely, and the MFMP is being watched? Because people want to see *someone* come up with a reproducible, openly published, result. And there just isn’t one. If you think there is, by all means, link to the paper that describes exactly how to perform the experiment that anyone with the right equipment can perform.

          So while I think there’s tantalizing evidence that *something* is afoot, there’s an unfortunate lack of actual, physical, evidence that any competent physicist can examine. That’s the only thing that matters. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

          • Freethinker

            Mr Allgood.

            Is that “why we are here”? Are you here at all? I wonder, and find you are not.

            You think “a lot of people are ASSUMING LENR is a proven concept , then concluding your ill informed opinion “It is not”.

            So why are you even bothering commenting in this forum, as a huge major
            majority of the readers are convinced by the overwhelming FACTS that it is exactly that – proven. It is proven by the dillingent work and relentless efforts by real scientists over the past 26 year. Check lenr-canr.org.

            I doubt you have open mindedly, yet critically, studied the research at hand. You seem utterly lost when it comes to reproduced experiments.

            Considering your lack of insight, I seriously doubt you are hoping for LENR leaving your fantasy world, and I submit that you are trolling.

            Go elsewhere, maybe ECN would be a more suitable place, where the regular commenters dwell in ogrish dark pits, where the light of clarity and insight never reaches, where they are afraid of the truth if it disturb their close minded sets of rules.

            Maybe you will feel at home.

          • Cuthbert Allgood

            Wow. So trying to inject a little reality gets an accusation of “trolling” and a demand to go elsewhere. Talk about being afraid of hearing potential truths.

            You may not be aware of how scientific inquiry works. It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think or what scientists over 26 years think. Feel free to have whatever opinion you want, but what matters is reproducible experiments.

            I am entirely open minded. The fact that I’ve been monitoring LENR for some whatever number of years is because there might be something here and I’m interested in it. But I’m also realistic enough (and knowledgeable enough) to know how science works, and so far LENR is only tantalizing anecdotes. And anecdotes, even from scientists, even over 26 years, are not science. At all.

            As one example, we had lots of years and lots of anecdotes about UFO sightings — when no one carried cameras. Yet by a startling coincidence, now that the world is awash in cameras, we no longer get UFO sightings. Maybe the aliens are more careful — or maybe it was the human ability to find patterns where there aren’t any, and now people can get rational explanations for whatever they take a picture of.

            My point is that if you feel so strongly that LENR is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then again, please give me a link to the reproducible experiment. And if that request makes you angry, don’t take your anger out on me. It’s not my fault no scientist has been able to publish a no-bullshit, “do this and the result is unexplainable beyond a doubt” experiment.

            > Maybe you will feel at home.

            Thank you for your concern, but I’m fine, thank you. I visit here quite often, though I don’t post often. For some reason today I felt motivated to inject some reality, not that it often helps, as your angry attack demonstrates.

          • Freethinker

            🙂

            You claim to be open minded and yet you see no problem with comparing UFO sightings with 26 years of scientific work in LENR, with plenty of replications. “LENR is only tantalizing anecdotes”” is a clear indication of that you are clueless as to what the field entails. This is classic trolling garbage. The only thing missing for a perfect BS bullseye is a reference to Yeti.

            You, in your claimed ambition to inject “reality”, lack the aptitude to embrace fact, as you so quite obviously disregard them. So no, you are quite the opposite of being “entirely open minded”.

            Please go troll elsewhere.

          • builditnow

            Humm,,… yes … associating UFO with LENR is classic troll behavior. Clearly no attempt to look at the actual results. Perhaps a cut and paste job from a Maryugo sighting.

          • builditnow

            So, for instance, Mike McKubre at SRI has reliably produced excess heat many many times, that’s just one lab with credibility that can do it. There are many other such credible top scientists and labs also able to reliably reproduce clearly positive LENR results in lab experiments.

            Clearly you have not even taken a close look at the SRI work, just for a start.
            When and if you decide to actually read the reports and evaluate the results, let me know your evaluation then. Any competitent scientist can evaluate the SRI results for instance. The question is, why don’t they bother.

            If you don’t do your own evaluation, your become a non thinking repeater station of old and out of date information.
            (SRI is Stanford Research International, associated with Stanford University, right in the middle of Silicon Valley. Mike McKubre’s team has over 100 person years of research into LENR over 26 years.)

          • Cuthbert Allgood

            > So, for instance, Mike McKubre at SRI has reliably produced excess heat many many times, that’s just one lab with credibility that can do it.

            Fantastic! Do you happen to have the link to his reproducible experiment? I looked for it, but couldn’t find anything.

            On the other hand, I did find this interesting quote, which does imply it’s out there somewhere:

            “In 2010, New Energy Times began an investigation into SRI International electrochemist Michael McKubre’s experiment “M4.” In the preceding decade, McKubre had presented this experiment as the best experimental proof for “cold fusion.”

            “In our investigation, we found that McKubre gradually changed, added and deleted data points and values in “M4” years after the experiment took place, in an apparent effort to support the cold fusion hypothesis. McKubre made all these changes, over the course of a 10-year period, without scientific explanation, most without notification.

            “McKubre is one of the most qualified electrochemists who has worked in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions. He and his former group set the standard in the 1990s for precision measurement of excess heat in LENR experiments. They designed first-principles calorimeters and performed meticulous, temporally correlated measurements of helium production in LENR cells. McKubre has also led some of the most important LENR replication experiments in the field.”

            There is a link to the full investigation here:

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml

            But even so, if what you say is true, that there are numerous published, reproducible experiments, what exactly are Parkohomov and MFMP trying to do? Because they seem awfully excited to be trying to find evidence of an effect, rather than simply improving on already-existing evidence.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, the claim is that the large mega factory will reduce costs by one third. So that means a 30% droop in price of the battery system – hardly any kind of revolution here.

      So an $110,000 Telsa with a $12,000 battery pack can now have a battery pack that costs $8400.

      So your $110,000 telsa can now be sold for $106,400. Hardly going to change the marketplace at all.

      So this drop in cost is not any kind of revolution for anyone as long as one can do grade 4 math.

      And given that mature lead acid systems can give you the same capacity for one half the cost, then for general storage, the Musk battery is DEAD on arrival.

      So the drop in costs is STILL NOT close to conventional battery technology available. As noted Li-ion is great for electric cars, phones and laptop where weight savings are at a premium cost.

      However for a ground based systems, then the weight savings of such a battery system are moot, null and void.

      I am at a loss as to why anyone would purchase such a storage device at double the cost of alternative systems now? So the claimed drop in price is NOT 2 times, nor 3 times, but a one third drop in costs (%30). As noted, this hardly makes a dent in the cost of their cars – but it with some green hype, people may well be willing to purchase a home battery system at double the current market rates – in fact I suspect the greens (who are usually broke) would be the ones purchasing such a device if they could afford them!

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      kallal@msn.com

      • you wrote: “the claim is that the large mega factory will reduce costs by one third. So that means a 30% droop in price of the battery system – hardly any kind of revolution here.”

        First of all… its a GIGA factory – ultimately going to be the size of 90 football fields with annual energy storage production equal to all the lithium ion battery factories in the world combined (in 2013).

        Many such factories will be built as the internal combustion engine is regulated to the dustbin of automotive history.

        And as far as there being a revolution, in transportation, that at least is for certain. Everybody but a few vested interests in the status quo seems to have received the memo.

        GM just announced that the future [of transportation] is electric. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_28070543/gm-sees-electric-future

        Meanwhile VW announced a long time ago they are going to electrify everyone of their vehicle classes and be the world leader in electrification. http://insideevs.com/volkswagen-outlines-electrified-vehicle-offerings-present-future/

        Also there is this: BMW To Phase Out Combustion Engines In 10 Years: Report
        http://jalopnik.com/bmw-to-phase-out-combustion-engines-in-10-years-report-1669963384

        I could go on, but basically all the major car companies are going electric (or fuel cell – which is a non-battery electric vehicle)

        You also wrote: “I am at a loss as to why anyone would purchase such a storage device”

        Did you not see (as was reported here) that, within day of the announcement, the Tesla Powerwall had been sold out into mid 2016.

        “On Tesla’s quarterly earnings call, CEO Elon Musk announced “crazy off the hook” demand for its just-announced Powerwall battery product. He said over 38,000 reservations have been received, which should take up the expected production through mid-2016, and demand is high enough to account for all of the Gigafactory’s production if they devoted it just to stationary batteries.” http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/06/tesla-powerwall-earnings/

        So you ARE at a loss… time for you to educate yourself I suppose because you are obviously missing something even after I pointed it out. CYCLE LIFE!

  • orsobubu

    Rossi edited the post. No more contacts.

    Andrea Rossi
    May 7th, 2015 at 12:52 PM

    Rafal Krych:
    Very interesting as a storage of energy too.

    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    • Sanjeev

      Must have received an angry phone call from above. Too late. I feel there are many big people/corporations who must be in contact with him, but we should not make too much of it.

    • Buck

      BuBu Bear,

      he also provided some clarification on the importance of reaching out in the blog exchange below.
      Andrea’s response implies that IH actively reaches out when there is a strong enough reason.

      =========================

      John
      May 7th, 2015 at 4:47 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      What does “being in contact” with Elon Musk mean? Have you exchanged e-mails? Or met in person? Or is the communication on behalf of Industrial Heat and not you personally?

      Best Regards,

      John

      ++++++++++++++++++

      Andrea Rossi
      May 7th, 2015 at 6:12 PM

      John:

      I cannot give information about these details, but I can confirm that it is important to have every available option for integrating into the energy infrastructure and to explore all available sources of synergies.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • This is like the idea of marriage between my 19 year old step-son and his girlfriend who is a real catch, I’m full of hope, but in all practicality it ain’t gonna happen for a long time.

    • August

      At 19 one should think about enjoying his/her life, not about getting legally tied with someone else for the years to come.

      • Imposer

        Says who?! Manage your own life. It’s their life and not about what YOU feel a 19 year old be thinking about.

      • Yeah August, with my track record I advised him not to get married until he was fifty-one.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Awareness and recognition of a new paradigm is emergent.

    If the E-Cat produces a plasma it can produce light via Sodium Plasma technology which is extremely mature and effective light production technology.

    Does anyone know if LENR plasma can be tapped for plasma instead of gathering the energy as heat?

    I envision Solar arrays with Tesla batteries and LENR plasma to light enhancing the solar collection. And making the solar panels productive day and night.

  • Warthog

    “There was no hint from Musk that he was thinking about another source of power (LENR) to charge his batteries.”

    Since he is talking utility scale implementations, one of the first applications will certainly be “load matching” for current utilities, eliminating “rolling blackouts” and allowing existing generation systems to be run more efficiently. Likewise for “early adopter” house-sized units. He has to “talk solar” because “environmental correctness” requires such comments. Be assured that “deep green” eco-types are totally opposed to technologies such as the E-cat. They see it as “giving an infant a machine gun”.

    • Cuthbert Allgood

      > Be assured that “deep green” eco-types are totally opposed to technologies such as the E-cat. They see it as “giving an infant a machine gun”.

      That doesn’t make any sense. People concerned about excessive carbon would welcome the e-cat, if it works, especially if it doesn’t produce any waste.

      And Elon Musk is 100% behind solar, not only because he makes a ton of money from it (he owns 22% of SolarCity) but that he very much believes in reducing carbon usage.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Literally anything Elon Musk does, he doesn’t do it for the money.

      • Warthog

        “That doesn’t make any sense. People concerned about excessive carbon
        would welcome the e-cat, if it works, especially if it doesn’t produce
        any waste.”

        I agree it doesn’t make any sense, but that is precisely the way it is. There is a segment of the environmental movement that considers humanity as a cancer on the face of the earth, and actually want to kill off 90% (or more) of the existing population base. A highly concentrated and highly portable energy source they see solely as a tool to increase both population size and that population’s resource usage. The “machine gun to an infant” is a direct quote of one of the more prominent ones.

        • Lux Terrea

          There are indeed too many people on the planet. We need a plague to take out about 90% of humanity. A clean power supply wont stop the destruciton of ecosystems caused by the over population of humans using up all of the Earth’s resources. Nor will it stop humans from killing off large swaths of the Earth super-organism which produces our food, water and air. Having said that, I hope that the E-cat is all that it is promised to be and that its use will remove coal, oil and gas from our energy grid.

          • Warthog

            Thanks for proving my point. And you are wrong on the rest of your points. With concentrated energy, most of the eco-problems can be remedied without any such draconian massacre, and at the same time actually reduce humanity’s eco-footprint. For just one example, see “vertical agriculture”. Jed Rothwell has a book which contains many other examples..

          • Lux Terrea

            What point are you talking about?? You said that there was a segment of society that wanted to kill off 90% of the global population and that segment viewed technologies like the e-cat as a bad thing. I showed exactly opposite in my response. Your argument about the ability for 7 billion people to keep pulling resources out of the earth indefinitely to make endless smartphones, flat screen tv’s, laptops, butt cheek implants and etc. etc. etc. is a completely different argument!

          • Warthog

            “There are indeed too many people on the planet. We need a plague to take out about 90% of humanity.

            So the above quote agreeing with the radical green mega-death agenda proves the opposite??? Strange logic there. Unless there is a “not” missing from your text, I don’ think so.

            Inexpensive, pollution-free concentrated power allows 100% recycling and access to “non-earth” resources. And much more.

            It is a proven sociological fact that once a poor society gains wealth, that the birth rate goes DOWN…voluntarily. The neo-Malthusian meme is bogus.

            .

        • GreenWin

          Pardon the intrusion gents but both Warthog and Cuthbert are spot on re “green” enviros. These people are hardcore misanthropes who could care less about real conservation (true environmentalism) and more about carbon taxes to fuel their NWO agenda. Were any, (Sierra, NRDC, Audubon, Algore, Earth First etc.) real conservationists they would be campaigning wildly for LENR which will return vast Km of energy exploited habitat to nature.

          Just another critique (i.e. critical thinking) of this sim bereft of true human behavior. IMO.

          • I don’t know where you guys come up with your erroneous belief system about environmentalists – or that people generally interested in sustainability are not or wouldnt be interested in commercially viable LENR. It’s beyond ridiculous. As ridiculous as denying AGW I suppose.

            When LENR products are actually on the market (non are currently) I’m sure the vast majority of environmentalists will get behind the technology and advocate for its use and adoption.

            Until then it’s not really worth much to them, especially given it’s not too glorious reputation.

          • Warthog

            “I don’t know where you guys come up with your erroneous belief system about environmentalists..”

            From direct statements made by them. “Most” RATIONAL environmentalists would fit your picture, but there is a radical subset that is “full-Malthusian”. The members of that element have said repeatedly in many venues that their goal is to kill off 90% or more of humanity.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I much agree – the eco greens are MOSTLY about an anti-industrial policy. The e-cat is all about a BOOM in use of energy! This is not to say all greens think this way, but a sizeable portion are against industry – even if one could have pollution free industry, they would NOT be happy. They are ALL about a anti-west and anti industry policy.

      As noted, the idea of such battery storage systems makes sense. The problem with Li-ion is they are FAR MORE expensive then lead acid. Li-ion is expensive, and used for electric cars, laptops and cell phones – the higher cost is worth it due to weight savings.

      So the idea is good, but using Li-ion battery that cost more then double for the SAME capacity as lead-acid makes VERY little sense. In other words, these are the wrong type of batteries

      Solar battery systems are quite mature now, are FAR cheaper then what Musk has. The only reason Musk is selling such systems is due to EXCESS battery capacity for his cars and the battery plant that had HUGE tax incentives and breaks for him to build. So he attempting to turn something from a factory into cash flow – a great idea, but as noted, that battery system is about double the cost in the current market for such capacity.

      So there is nothing wrong with paying 2X as much for something if consumers and people don’t know better.

      As for “on-demand” CO-generation, you can see in this view that Dean Kamem uses a battery bank until the co-generator can start producing electrify.

      http://oninnovation.com/videos/detail.aspx?video=1906#ooid=NieHNzMTpvp9QqMDcBUk5oSk0to65sOh

      I MUCH suspect that devices like the above Beacon 10 co-generator will be the FIRST consumer devices based on LENR that produce electricity.

      The simple matter is the most of the heat can be used for hot water and heating of the home, but as the above video shows – the heat can also drive a generator. And the temperature range is within the range of the e-cat.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • “using Li-ion battery that cost more then double for the SAME capacity as
        lead-acid makes VERY little sense.”

        you still aren’t factoring in cycle life and other factors. I already schooled you on this in the other Tesla thread but you ignored it.

        this time read it:

        you might find this interesting.

        http://www.batterypoweronline.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lead-acid-white-paper.pdf

        It’s a report from 2012. please note the chart on page 13.

        they used a price per kWh for Li-ion of $600! in their calculations. that
        is probably double the cost of li-ion today and will certainly be 3x
        times the actual cost of lithium ion in 4-5 years.

        https://theconversation.com/battery-costs-drop-even-faster-as-electric-car-sales-continue-to-rise-39780

        Some even predict Li-ion could reach close to $100/kWh by 2020.

        but even using $600/kWh, the allcell report showed that li-ion was still way
        cheaper that Lead Acid in hot climates. and only 18% more expensive in moderate
        climates. Note they didn’t show any results for cold climates… where
        Lead Acid is practically useless.

        BTW, congrats your new NDP goverment!

        • Albert D. Kallal

          There are a lot of issues at play here. Some “grains” of salt are required for those pushing these more expensive battery systems.

          I will much agree if such a system is going to be cycled on a daily basis, and due to high discharge rates, and low maintains, then li-ion makes sense. However li-ion have a limited shelf life – even if you don’t use them!

          And due to increased use in cars, then the reduction in costs ARE occurring for li-ion – this certainly does help make the case for such systems.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada
          kallal@msn.com

          • I see no evidence that panasonic 18650s (the batteries Tesla uses) have a limited shelf life. I see the contrary here: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=panasonic+18650+shelf+life

            and your last statement confuses me. you first claimed Li-ion was too expensive for home storage. now you claim a reduction in costs for these batteries in cars wouldn’t help make the case for powerwall systems.

            perhaps you did not know this but in Tesla’s case at least, the same (or similar) batteries are going in both Tesla cars and their Powerwalls/packs so a reduction in cost benefits both applications.

            As Tesla’s battery supplier, Panasonic is a major partner in the giga factory. I don’t see Tesla abandoning this partnership any time soon.

      • Also your claim that Tesla has a surplus of batteries that it can’t use in its cars is completely ass backwards. The auto company is production constrained and that’s mostly due to batteries. It is NOT demand constrained. http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2013/11/05/tesla-up-9-as-production-hinders-growth/

        Tesla has never formally needed to advertise to increase demand. Demand for the model S has always been high and remains high. Despite continually ramping up production, there has and continues to be a longish to long waiting list depending on the version of model S being ordered.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I don’t think it is a question that they “can’t” use them in their cars, but they simply have more battery capacity now then what they need for their cars.

          So the car production is constrained, but with the new mega battery plant, they do have excess battery capacity, but certainly not excess car production capacity (they are selling everything they make – and have a waiting list).

          So yes, I do think this is a business play to utilize the excess capacity they have for batteries. I mean, you think they would sell batteries to consumers in place of selling a car for $100,000?

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada
          kallal@msn.com

          • I think I can correct a couple misconceptions. The giga factory is under construction and hasn’t produced a single battery. It don’t think it’s scheduled to until 2017.

            Also the giga factory is to supply batteries for the Tesla Model 3 which they plan to sell hundreds of thousands of starting in mid 2017. It’s still in development.

            The selling price of the model 3 will be in the mid 30ks.

      • Tesla Didn’t Invent Home Energy Storage, Has Many Competitors

        http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098160_tesla-didnt-invent-home-energy-storage-has-many-competitors

        The article states: “Large battery makers, including Samsung SDI, LG Chem, and Saft Groupe already sell products that do fundamentally the same thing as the Tesla Powerwall, the news service says. A number of smaller companies are also entering the field.

        Startup Stem has secured a large contract with utility Southern California Edison, and Coda Energy–reborn from the remains of the failed electric-car maker–also sells batteries to businesses for energy storage.”

        ASSIGNMENT for Albert: Find how many of these companies listed are providing lead acid batteries in their home/business energy storage solutions.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    I think that a battery storage unit like Powerwall could be used for plant startup in a co-generation facility with LENR. Even fossil fueled plants with boilers need massive electrical energy for startup. In the 70’s I visited many coal-fired plants. One had a 10,000 Horsepower electrical motor for the boiler water feed pump that was just used for startup, switching to a steam turbine feed pump once the plant was generating steam. A small LENR plant with no grid connection would need an energy source to start. If it is true (as some have suggested) that the EM-field component of the electrical heaters is important for LENR, then a off-grid electrical source would be needed to start it up.

  • Buck

    BuBu Bear,

    he also provided some clarification on the importance of reaching out in the blog exchange below.
    Andrea’s response implies that IH actively reaches out when there is a strong enough reason.

    =========================

    John
    May 7th, 2015 at 4:47 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    What does “being in contact” with Elon Musk mean? Have you exchanged e-mails? Or met in person? Or is the communication on behalf of Industrial Heat and not you personally?

    Best Regards,

    John

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Andrea Rossi
    May 7th, 2015 at 6:12 PM

    John:

    I cannot give information about these details, but I can confirm that it is important to have every available option for integrating into the energy infrastructure and to explore all available sources of synergies.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Imposer

      Says who?! Manage your own life. It’s their life and not about what YOU feel a 19 year old be thinking about.

  • Alex Ruiz

    The obvious meaning is that Rossi and Rafal Krych are in contact. Nothing else.

  • Cuthbert Allgood

    If LENR is real, solar power is dead. There would be no reason to combine the two technologies.

    • bkrharold

      Not necessarily, solar power is now cheaper than electricity from the grid, and getting cheaper with new discoveries like perovskite. Solar obviously only works when the sun is shining, but LENR works 24/7. Solar generates electricity directly, but LENR requires an inefficient conversion. They each have different advantages and disadvantages, used together each may overcome the others disadvantage.

      • Steven Irizarry

        no…cold fusion is perfect compared to solar. the incentive to create solar panels will vanish along with the companies that sold them when cold fusion is commercialized. sorry but comparing lenr to solar is like comparing gold to crap

        • bkrharold

          Perhaps LENR will become the perfect source of energy. It is now in its infancy, and it will take a lot of research and development, before it reaches its full potential. I truly hope that it does. In the meantime, green energy is a much better alternative to the fossil fuels which are destroying our planet. The situation is urgent, CO2 has now exceeded 400ppm. At the current glacial pace of development it could be years before LENR is ready for prime time, solar wind and wave power are here today.

        • i don’t think the successful commercialization of lenr will hurt the solar, wind and energy storage industries very much at all at least not for a couple decades.

          the heat will be useful for sure but whether it can produce electrical power effectively remains to be seen.

          either way it will be at least several years before it could even think about stealing any market share from the exponential juggernaut that is already wind and solar.

      • Jossarian

        Lol, BTW my younger brother Piotr Krych is actually “Saule Technologies” director. This is company which owns perovskite IT and is working on introducing it to market right now.

        I told him that E-Cat might actually destroy the solar power, so he should be cautious about his investments.

        • bkrharold

          E-Cat will not meet its full potential, until it is fully accepted by the ruling class. Until then it will remain a curiosity, seldom mentioned in the main stream media, and not taken seriously. Eventually it will take root and replace all other energy technologies, but This may take many years. The fossil fuel industry have $trillions at stake, and they will not go down without a fight. Your brothers business will be fine. Even when the E-Cat is widely accepted, there will still be room for solar. If the price of solar panels continue to decline it will remain a cost effective alternative.

    • Jossarian

      Hi, I’m a Rafal Krych.

      My idea was to combine Tesla’s energy storage unit which they are now selling under name Powerwall with Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat reactor.

      This would allow charging the Powerwall when E-Cat is active (self-sustaning) and powering E-Cat when it is starting or out of self-sustaining mode.
      This will allow to overcome some E-Cat weak points, which actually prevent using it in home which is not grid connected.

      The Solar Power is not needed for this, unless for backup purposes.

  • Cuthbert Allgood

    > Does that mean he’s completely discounting ultra capacitors and LENR and everything else?

    Ultracapacitors have poor energy density and the problem doesn’t look to be fixed on the horizon, and LENR doesn’t exist in any form, as far as the mainstream world is concerned (and, practically speaking, as the non-mainstream world is concerned since no one can get a working model).

  • clovis ray

    I love this, if this is true, Dr, Rossi is not impressed easily, he knows the truth and is not easily swayed , as long as i have been followed him,he has been this way, it infuriates some folks, —-smile

  • Warthog

    Thanks for proving my point. And you are wrong on the rest of your points. With concentrated energy, most of the eco-problems can be remedied without any such draconian massacre, and at the same time actually reduce humanity’s eco-footprint. For just one example, see “vertical agriculture”. Jed Rothwell has a book which contains many other examples..

  • Musk’s cars and batteries are not cost effective and they are not “green” environmentally because they cause too much pollution to manufacture. Super capacitors made with carbon or ceramics show allot of promise, but those technologies are not yet available for sale as far as I know. Musk will have to develop cost effective products to stay in business for the long term. Right now he is riding a fad, not producing efficient, world saving products. LENR should be both cost effective and relatively nonpolluting.

    • Sanjeev

      More “Rossi says” stuff –
      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=874&cpage=11#comment-1077377

      By the way, the test on course on the Hot Cat adjacent to the 1 MW E-Cat
      are going well, and it is the core of what will be the domestic E-Cat

      So there will be a domestic e-cat? Plans have changed it seems.

      • GreenWin

        That is certainly where the money is in distributed energy. Couple years ago NASA’s Joe Zawodny speculated on LENR appliances in home owner basements. A market of 3-4B units puts this product above iPhone numbers.

        • *”our addiction to oil”*

          You are using the talking points of misguided, politically motivated group-think. Oil is the only transportation fuel that works right now. We are dependent on oil because without it we would all quickly starve to death. The renewable energy fad is very childish. It never talks about life the way it really is. It only speaks in term fantasies that don’t hold up to analysis. Give up oil, spit on the hand that feeds you, and you will die. First we have to find a authentic replacement for oil, and that replacement has to be reliable, portable, and with a very high energy density. Unreliable, intermittent, diffuse and low low energy density solutions cannot work. The field of energy has been politicized by people who cannot understand basic mathematics and science. Our politicians have created many vampiric fad energy industries that suck money out of our economy without producing any beneficial products. The USA is bankrupt, and we don’t have any real money left to spend, only money we borrow from other nations. Our collapse is near. LENR is the only hope of getting us out of this mess. Energy mandates and subsidies just make us poorer. We need to stop repeating hollow slogans that do not represent the true, provable facts of life. We are not “addicted” to air and water because we need both to live. Today, oil is literally as essential to our survival as air and water.

        • builditnow

          So, for instance, Mike McKubre at SRI has reliably produced excess heat many many times, that’s just one lab with credibility that can do it. There are many other such credible top scientists and labs also able to reliably reproduce clearly positive LENR results in lab experiments.

          Clearly you have not even taken a close look at the SRI work, just for a start.
          When and if you decide to actually read the reports and evaluate the results, let me know your evaluation then. Any competitent scientist can evaluate the SRI results for instance. The question is, why don’t they bother.

          If you don’t do your own evaluation, your become a non thinking repeater station of old and out of date information.
          (SRI is Stanford Research International, associated with Stanford University, right in the middle of Silicon Valley. Mike McKubre’s team has over 100 person years of research into LENR over 26 years.)

      • Andy Kumar

        Sanjeev,
        Do I sense a bit of skepticism sneaking in? By now, we now that “Rossi says” is the Gospel Truth. I say, let the man work in peace. You can not hurry technological revolutions.

        • Sanjeev

          No one said that whatever he says is gospel truth. So its your own delusion or fertile imagination as usual. 😀
          Most of the Rossi statements have been proven true, but not all, so I do not guarantee that this will happen 100%. As with all start ups and cutting edge techs, nothing is fixed in the LENR world.
          I do encourage you to keep finding whatever little negativity you can in anything positive you read here, its good for a laugh for us all. At least you are brave enough to always step up to be the clown in the lenr room.

        • Yeah August, with my track record I advised him not to get married until he was fifty-one.

          • Gerard McEk

            If an E-cat or Hot cat is interated in this Heat and electricity home unit:
            http://www.powerblock.eu/de/lion-powerblock/Funktion-Animation.php
            and combined with the Tesla motors Powerwall, than we may have an ideal power/heating unit to make you totally independent from the grid!

          • builditnow

            Think ahead to self flying cars

      • ecatworld

        I think the domestic e-cat has always been in the plans. The certification is what has been what’s been holding it back, from what AR has told us.

  • Musk’s cars and batteries are not cost effective and they are not “green” environmentally because they cause too much pollution to manufacture. Super capacitors made with carbon or ceramics show allot of promise, but those technologies are not yet available for sale as far as I know. Musk will have to develop cost effective products to stay in business for the long term. Right now he is riding a fad, not producing efficient, world saving products. LENR should be both cost effective and relatively nonpolluting.

    • you wrote: “Musk’s cars and batteries are not cost effective and they are not
      “green” environmentally because they cause too much pollution to
      manufacture.”

      Are Electric Vehicles Better for the Environment than Gas-Powered Ones?
      http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517146/are-electric-vehicles-better-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered-ones/

      “Renault recently made public a report that provides a fair assessment
      by comparing an electric version of its Fluence sedan with gas and
      diesel-powered versions of the same car. And it makes clear that
      electric cars are, indeed, better for the environment. The report is a
      life-cycle assessment, a “cradle to grave” analysis, including not only
      the emissions involved in using the car, but also the emissions from
      making it, the resources consumed in manufacturing, and a range of
      environmental impacts. It looked at not only greenhouse-gas emissions,
      but impacts on acid rain, ozone pollution, algae blooms, consumption of
      water and materials such as steel and copper, and total energy demand.”

      So much for your anti EV talking point. Careful analysis shows it’s definitely greener to build and use EVs.

      As far as “not cost effective” goes you are dead wrong there as well. The Model S is far cheaper to own than any car with comparable features and performance. that is a fact.

      • I do not believe the study and few outside the electric auto industry do. The idea that a Tesla is cost effective is absurd. Windmills, solar schemes, biofuels, and many other so-called “green technologies” are actually more destructive. Electric cars are different than those technologies because they have future positive potential, probably not with batteries, but with super capacitors. I think electric cars will some day become efficient and useful. That day has not come yet. How many electric cars are selling now? How many would sell if there were no government mandates and subsidies? Socialized energy policy is bad because it distorts reality and the marketplace. We need a fair and honest marketplace, and we don’t need any more distortions of reality in our lives. Americans are delusional enough already.

        • You are great at throwing out baseless talking points and rhetoric with no data to back it up.

          You complain about TEMPORARY financial subsidies to green energy and EVs? Really?

          The oil, coal and nuclear industries are nothing but subsidized and have been since their begining.

          When you can damage the health of millions of people and cause a lot of premature death like coal does at an annual cost annually of hundreds of millions of dollars… THAT’S a subsidy.

          Same as when you can blow up mountains and contaminate watersheds, rivers and streams. THAT’S a subsidy. There are many more coal subsidies.

          “The economic, health and environmental impacts associated with extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion cost the U.S. public between a third to over half a trillion dollars annually.

          Accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of non-fossil fuel power generation economically competitive.”
          -Harvard School of public health. http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/explore-true-costs-coal

          and just one more example (there are so many to choose from) how much does it cost America in military expenditures to keep the oil flowing?

          “According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic penalties of America’s oil dependence total $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually. If reflected at the gasoline pump, these “hidden costs” would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline to over $5.28. A fill-up would be over $105.”

          http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

          I could go on and on…

          Anyone who complains that temporary, direct financial subsidies for renewable energy and EVs distorts the market has a lot of learning to do or a lot of lying to do.

          Notice I never once even brought up AGW – the biggest subsidy for fossil fuels of all. If business continues as usual, coastal cities are in a colassal, expensive mess down the road.

          In a truly free market where externalized and hidden costs to the commons is rightfully accounted for, fossil fuels lose big.

          So watch what you wish for.

          • There have been lots of independent studies that show that electric cars are not yet economically or environmentally viable. Oil works. Until we get a replacement, I am not going to criticize the energy source that is keeping all of us alive. Renewable energy is a false religion, and electric cars are a fad that may soon become a useful tool. People will buy electric cars when they become viable. Now you have to bribe people to buy them. That should tell you something.

          • LOL, wall street, major car manufacturers and global policy makers do not agree with you on any of that. And the majority of the public believes that the sooner we get off our addiction to oil the better. Electrons rule.

            Again, your talking points are from 2002 or earlier.

            Look around. the EV / Renewable power age is upon us.

          • *”our addiction to oil”*

            You are using the talking points of misguided, politically motivated group-think. Oil is the only transportation fuel that works right now. We are dependent on oil because without it we would all quickly starve to death. The renewable energy fad is very childish. It never talks about life the way it really is. It only speaks in term fantasies that don’t hold up to analysis. Give up oil, spit on the hand that feeds you, and you will die. First we have to find a authentic replacement for oil, and that replacement has to be reliable, portable, and with a very high energy density. Unreliable, intermittent, diffuse and low low energy density solutions cannot work. The field of energy has been politicized by people who cannot understand basic mathematics and science. Our politicians have created many vampiric fad energy industries that suck money out of our economy without producing any beneficial products. The USA is bankrupt, and we don’t have any real money left to spend, only money we borrow from other nations. Our collapse is near. LENR is the only hope of getting us out of this mess. Energy mandates and subsidies just make us poorer. We need to stop repeating hollow slogans that do not represent the true, provable facts of life. We are not “addicted” to air and water because we need both to live. Today, oil is literally as essential to our survival as air and water.

          • Steven Irizarry

            chris your whole america is bankrupt sounds like a political slogan as well

          • It’s a provable fact. Without money borrowed every day from China and Japan, our two biggest lenders, our nation would collapse. Social Security will soon be out of money. The fabric of our society is crumbling. I want a replacement for oil because fossil fuels are too expensive and we need a major economic boost to raise the entire world economy. A carbon free solution is best because we all want clean air and water. My point is that we should take one step at a time and not waste money on worthless ventures and fads. The market is the best judge of what energy products actually work. The market will weed out the losers. The government finances losers out of stupidity and corruption. They become corporate welfare programs that demand to be constantly fed taxpayer money. We need a relatively small amount of money for basic research. Mandates and subsidies are never justified.

          • Omega Z

            Fibb,
            There is a difference in subsidies, tax breaks & tax deductions.
            If your employer spends $10K on your health insurance & the Government doesn’t tax it as corporate profit, it is a tax deduction to encourage the employer to provide this coverage. A subsidy would be the Government kicking back a portion of that $10K to the employer. The fact that the government also doesn’t tax it as part of “your” income is an out right tax break to you.

            Elon Musk is getting a 1.5 Billion$ tax break spread over 10 years on his Mega Plant. I don’t have an issue with that. He wouldn’t build it without these breaks & the jobs & income tax revenues would be lost without it. This is a win for the Government. Tho the Government paying for a portion of the finished product is a Subsidy.

            There are very few Subsidies in the fossil fuel industry. Most are tax deductions. As in, Wages paid out or equipment purchased are not taxed as profit.(As with all business) It is an expense. A tax break or tax deduction. You best hope the people who twist this don’t prevail because nearly everything will increase by 50% or more in costs to the consumer. Note that equipment investment will still be taxed as a Capitol gain.

            In Essence, A subsidy is when the Government Actually gives you money directly out of pocket. Like paying 1/3rd of the cost of solar or wind production costs. Not “applying” a tax is a tax break or deduction.

            Note that the U.S. Government gets 16% of all gross revenue sales of coal, gas & oil from federal lands plus many other fees & are considering raising that to 25%. That means your cost will increase making so called green energies cost competitive. Not because they are cheaper, but because fossil energy is artificially being price inflated.

            State Governments are also in on this game. Usually labeled a separation tax. And this doesn’t include the average 50+ cents a gallon tax at the pump. You could legitimately claim who subsidizes who.

            Coal is dirty & harms and Kills people. No Argument here. How many would have been harmed & have died without it. When I was very young, my parents burned wood & coal in a pot belly stove. Without it, we would have froze to death.

            Life is about trade offs. Vaccines kill or cripple a small percentage of every 100K people who receive them. But the number is much smaller then the diseases they prevent. This is a positive outcome. It doesn’t mean we should stop looking for something better.

            A Modern Coal plant can capture over 95% of all the pollutants. This is a great improvement from the past. It doesn’t mean we should stop looking for something better. LENR will also have it’s own negative impacts tho it will be another great improvement. But we should continue to work towards something even better. Always….

    • you gave an assertion with no data or analysis…

      this guy brought both….

      “Dispelling Some Myths About The Environmental Impact Of Electric Vehicles”
      http://insideevs.com/dispelling-some-myths-about-the-environmental-impact-of-electric-vehicles/

  • Sanjeev

    More “Rossi says” stuff –
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=874&cpage=11#comment-1077377

    By the way, the test on course on the Hot Cat adjacent to the 1 MW E-Cat
    are going well, and it is the core of what will be the domestic E-Cat

    So there will be a domestic e-cat? Plans have changed it seems.

    • GreenWin

      That is certainly where the money is in distributed energy. Couple years ago NASA’s Joe Zawodny speculated on LENR appliances in home owner basements. A market of 3-4B units puts this product above iPhone numbers.

    • Andy Kumar

      Sanjeev,
      Do I sense a bit of skepticism sneaking in? By now, we now that “Rossi says” is the Gospel Truth. I say, let the man work in peace. You can not hurry technological revolutions.

      • Sanjeev

        No one said that whatever he says is gospel truth. So its your own delusion or fertile imagination as usual. 😀
        Most of the Rossi statements have been proven true, but not all, so I do not guarantee that this will happen 100%. As with all start ups and cutting edge techs, nothing is fixed in the LENR world.
        I do encourage you to keep finding whatever little negativity you can in anything positive you read here, its good for a laugh for us all. At least you are brave enough to always step up to be the clown in the lenr room.

    • Frank Acland

      I think the domestic e-cat has always been in the plans. The certification is what has been what’s been holding it back, from what AR has told us.

  • GreenWin

    Wild-A speculation. Elon Musk accentuates the Sun as a big fusion reactor in the sky. But insolation energy is severely dissipated by the time it reaches Earth – combined with intermittency and PV efficiency around 10% — makes the Sun a Rev 1.0 source of distributed energy.

    However, IF the automated gigafactory is fully programmable – as is likely – retooling for different yet simple component parts would take only weeks or months. What if Elon’s fusion reactor in the sky could be replaced by a “fusion reactor” on Terra-firma??

    • Steven Irizarry

      clarify your ideas

  • Warthog

    “There are indeed too many people on the planet. We need a plague to take out about 90% of humanity.

    So the above quote agreeing with the radical green mega-death agenda proves the opposite??? Strange logic there. Unless there is a “not” missing from your text, I don’ think so.

    Inexpensive, pollution-free concentrated power allows 100% recycling and access to “non-earth” resources. And much more.

    It is a proven sociological fact that once a poor society gains wealth, that the birth rate goes DOWN…voluntarily. The neo-Malthusian meme is bogus.

    .

  • Warthog

    “I don’t know where you guys come up with your erroneous belief system about environmentalists..”

    From direct statements made by them. “Most” RATIONAL environmentalists would fit your picture, but there is a radical subset that is “full-Malthusian”. The members of that element have said repeatedly in many venues that their goal is to kill off 90% or more of humanity.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I don’t think it is a question that they “can’t” use them in their cars, but they simply have more battery capacity now then what they need for their cars.

    So the car production is constrained, but with the new mega battery plant, they do have excess battery capacity, but certainly not excess car production capacity (they are selling everything they make – and have a waiting list).

    So yes, I do think this is a business play to utilize the excess capacity they have for batteries. I mean, you think they would sell batteries to consumers in place of selling a car for $100,000?

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

    • EEStorFanFibb

      I think I can correct a couple misconceptions. The giga factory is under construction and hasn’t produced a single battery. It don’t think it’s scheduled to until 2017.

      Also the giga factory is to supply batteries for the Tesla Model 3 which they plan to sell hundreds of thousands of starting in mid 2017. It’s still in development.

      The selling price of the model 3 will be in the mid 30ks.

  • Freethinker

    🙂

    You claim to be open minded and yet you see no problem with comparing UFO sightings with 26 years of scientific work in LENR, with plenty of replications. “LENR is only tantalizing anecdotes”” is a clear indication of that you are clueless as to what the field entails. This is classic trolling garbage. The only thing missing for a perfect BS bullseye is a reference to Yeti.

    You, in your claimed ambition to inject “reality”, lack the aptitude to embrace fact, as you so quite obviously disregard them. So no, you are quite the opposite of being “entirely open minded”.

    Please go troll elsewhere.

    • builditnow

      Humm,,… yes … associating UFO with LENR is classic troll behavior. Clearly no attempt to look at the actual results. Perhaps a cut and paste job from a Maryugo sighting.

  • Contrary to some people’s opinions, electric vehicles ARE economically viable and ready for prime time.

    As this case clearly demonstrates:

    http://insideevs.com/nissan-e-nv200-taxi-saves-fleets-so-much-cash-that-its-like-getting-a-license-to-print-money/

    “Nissan e-NV200 Taxi Saves Fleets So Much Cash That It’s Like Getting A License To Print Money”

    • Steven Irizarry

      i believe that electric cars will only be popular when cold fusion gets applied creating a car with near limitless range

      • define popular because in Norway evs are already quite popular.

        Norway Electric Car Sales At Nearly 26% Market Share In March!
        http://insideevs.com/norway-electric-car-sales-nearly-26-market-share-march/

        • European Union Electric Car Sales Up 58% In Q1 2015 http://insideevs.com/european-union-electric-car-sales-58-q1-2015/

        • Omega Z

          I sold 1 Ev car last year. I sold 2 Ev car’s this year. Sales are up 100% year over year. Such numbers don’t mean much when you start from a small footprint to begin with. Norway is a small country & small market.

          Total world car production runs between 76/80 million vehicles a year. Target sales of Ev’s was 400K for 2014. That’s about 0.5 percent of total vehicle sales. If you double that over the next 5 years to 800k(1%), From an investors point of view, this is huge. In reality it is a pittance.

          Elon Musk is now pushing his Powewall. Do you understand the reasoning behind that. His Mega plant will produce 500K batteries a year. About 200K more then the Ev market will be able to absorb for some time. He needs a market for that surplus or his batteries will cost substantially more then his target of about $12K each. Or his plant will go broke.

          Ev’s are not as economical as some imply. Take away the subsidies/tax breaks & cost shifting & look again. There is deception afoot. And, when the 3 to 4 cent mileage tax come into effect their will be another eye opener. With a 200 mile range using the 3 cent figure will be $6 a charge plus the cost of electricity which is also laden with increasing tax rates. Still cheaper then a tank of gas, but not so much when you figure all the hidden fees.

          There is a reason for all the propaganda, hype & gimmicks when promoting agenda’s. People don’t tend to buy in if you tell them it will ultimately cost them much more then they pay now. We can only hope new technology breakthroughs will come & change the equations for the better.

          • Yes, the percentage increases in EV sales don’t look as impressive when you consider that we are talking small sales numbers compared to the total of cars sold. but it’s a start and it will continue to grow.

            EVs will continue to get better and cheaper (sticker price wise) for years to come and at a fairly rapid rate. The EVs of 2020 will be vastly superior to ones available today. Don’t miss the fact that you are trying to spread FUD on a quickly moving target.

            The inherent advantages to EVs which I written about before (and you poo pooed and dismissed out of hand) makes me confident that at some point in the next X years they will dominate sales.

            And Musk is not pushing his powerwall because he’s going to have a surplus of batteries from his new factory. That’s you just spreading FUD. He’s doing it because there is ALSO a huge demand for the powerwall as we seen…. 40,000 orders within days of launch.

            EVs are already superior machines – in performance AND in most cases in total cost of ownership. There is no deception except by you.

            I see EVs as smart phones…. and ICEs are clam shells phones.

            At some point the whole industry will tip and ICEs will be toast.

            Car makers make ever increasing announcements about bringing more plug in vehicles to market. They know it’s coming.

  • bkrharold

    Perhaps LENR will become the perfect source of energy. It is now in its infancy, and it will take a lot of research and development, before it reaches its full potential. I truly hope that it does. In the meantime, green energy is a much better alternative to the fossil fuels which are destroying our planet. The situation is urgent, CO2 has now exceeded 400ppm. At the current glacial pace of development it could be years before LENR is ready for prime time, solar wind and wave power are here today.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    i don’t think the successful commercialization of lenr will hurt the solar, wind and energy storage industries very much at all at least not for a couple decades.

    the heat will be useful for sure but whether it can produce electrical power effectively remains to be seen.

    either way it will be at least several years before it could even think about stealing any market share from the exponential juggernaut that is already wind and solar.

  • facts and references showing renewable power is completely reliable, cost effective and dominating new power capacity installations

    http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/increase-renewable-energy/fact-renewable-energy-is-reliable?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=fb#.VU03DJPGp1A

  • Gerard McEk

    If an E-cat or Hot cat is interated in this Heat and electricity home unit:
    http://www.powerblock.eu/de/lion-powerblock/Funktion-Animation.php
    and combined with the Tesla motors Powerwall, than we may have an ideal power/heating unit to make you totally independent from the grid!

  • EEStorFanFibb

    European Union Electric Car Sales Up 58% In Q1 2015 http://insideevs.com/european-union-electric-car-sales-58-q1-2015/

  • Omega Z

    Fibb,
    There is a difference in subsidies, tax breaks & tax deductions.
    If your employer spends $10K on your health insurance & the Government doesn’t tax it as corporate profit, it is a tax deduction to encourage the employer to provide this coverage. A subsidy would be the Government kicking back a portion of that $10K to the employer. The fact that the government also doesn’t tax it as part of “your” income is an out right tax break to you.

    Elon Musk is getting a 1.5 Billion$ tax break spread over 10 years on his Mega Plant. I don’t have an issue with that. He wouldn’t build it without these breaks & the jobs & income tax revenues would be lost without it. This is a win for the Government. Tho the Government paying for a portion of the finished product is a Subsidy.

    There are very few Subsidies in the fossil fuel industry. Most are tax deductions. As in, Wages paid out or equipment purchased are not taxed as profit.(As with all business) It is an expense. A tax break or tax deduction. You best hope the people who twist this don’t prevail because nearly everything will increase by 50% or more in costs to the consumer. Note that equipment investment will still be taxed as a Capitol gain.

    In Essence, A subsidy is when the Government Actually gives you money directly out of pocket. Like paying 1/3rd of the cost of solar or wind production costs. Not “applying” a tax is a tax break or deduction.

    Note that the U.S. Government gets 16% of all gross revenue sales of coal, gas & oil from federal lands plus many other fees & are considering raising that to 25%. That means your cost will increase making so called green energies cost competitive. Not because they are cheaper, but because fossil energy is artificially being price inflated.

    State Governments are also in on this game. Usually labeled a separation tax. And this doesn’t include the average 50+ cents a gallon tax at the pump. You could legitimately claim who subsidizes who.

    Coal is dirty & harms and Kills people. No Argument here. How many would have been harmed & have died without it. When I was very young, my parents burned wood & coal in a pot belly stove. Without it, we would have froze to death.

    Life is about trade offs. Vaccines kill or cripple a small percentage of every 100K people who receive them. But the number is much smaller then the diseases they prevent. This is a positive outcome. It doesn’t mean we should stop looking for something better.

    A Modern Coal plant can capture over 95% of all the pollutants. This is a great improvement from the past. It doesn’t mean we should stop looking for something better. LENR will also have it’s own negative impacts tho it will be another great improvement. But we should continue to work towards something even better. Always….