Industrial Heat Slideshow Posted

Thanks to Paul Smith for sharing a link to a slide show that was posted on the Italian Cobraf forum which appears to be a presentation by Industrial Heat given in China, but I can find no way to verify with certainty its authenticity. UPDATE: AlainCo notes that the original slideshow is available here, on the official website of the Baishishan national Sino-US Science and Technology International Innovation Park here: http://chinauspark.com/appUpdata/file/20140925/20140925152226_9375.pdf. This would indicate that this is a genuine IH document, since Tom Darden had been involved in the establishment of the park.

Along with the slideshow there is an image on Cobraf which shows Tom Darden shaking hands with an unidentified official. Many thanks to “me” who posted below these links showing that this image was taken from the signing ceremony of the Baishishan International Innovation Park of China-US Science and Technology that took place in Beijing on October 18, 2015.

http://www.bendijin.net/feed/en_2658519
http://www.bsscustip.com/newsinfo.aspx?id=845
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=it&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yiyangznews.com%2Fa%2Fkeji%2F20151023%2F5769.html

 

Dardenchina

From the Cobraf forum I am not able to determine the source of the slideshow, so it’s posted here for readers’ information. I can find no date on it either.

Here’s a link to the slideshow: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123606721_1.pdf

A few interesting points from the slideshow:

— LENR is defined as “Low Energy Nickel Reaction”

— “A number of LENR technologies are demonstrating significant progress; one in particular may be ready for commercialization”

— “1 MW Solar PV = 5 acres; 1 MW Wind = 2 acres; 1 MW LENR = < 0.1 acre”

Dardenchina1

  • me
    • ecatworld

      Thanks very much, me — very helpful. I have added the links to the post above.

  • me
    • Frank Acland

      Thanks very much, me — very helpful. I have added the links to the post above.

  • wpj

    I note that they are getting prepared for public acceptance by getting rid of the dreaded “N” word, just as they did for NMR (to MRI).

  • wpj

    I note that they are getting prepared for public acceptance by getting rid of the dreaded “N” word, just as they did for NMR (to MRI).

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have a technical and native chinese speaker with perfect English here in the office – I will get him to verify the text on the presentation – knowing that it is well translated will add credibility to the authenticity

    • Ged

      Let us know if this contact can translate the third to last slide (the big diagram slide) for us. I am extremely curious to know what it is saying, as it looks like commercialization plans.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I asked him about it when I saw him late in the day. He said yes he would do it, I’ll let people know when it is done.

        • Ged

          Thank you both!

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have a technical and native chinese speaker with perfect English here in the office – I will get him to verify the text on the presentation – knowing that it is well translated will add credibility to the authenticity

    • Ged

      Let us know if this contact can translate the third to last slide (the big diagram slide) for us. I am extremely curious to know what it is saying, as it looks like commercialization plans.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I asked him about it when I saw him late in the day. He said yes he would do it, I’ll let people know when it is done.

        • Ged

          Thank you both!

    • Gian Luca

      Specially the last two slides
      Thanks Bob….

  • Ged

    There is a lot of very interesting details here, including the cost effectiveness of the current “reactor” (3 cents per kwh).

    Also, the current “reactor” is working between 120 and 500 C with a COP of 3 – 20? That’s big technical news too.

    Even more, they state “the reactor” is more reliable than other technologies (as well as other major benefits from it, since this is marketing of course), which is another majorly interesting point given the ongoing reliability test. Seems IH is satisfied “the reactor” is highly reliable; at least competitively so.

    This presentation is a gold mine.

    If anyone can translate the third to last slide’s diagram, there is a ton of important information there I would like to know.

    • georgehants

      Aljazeera
      Study finds natural gas no cleaner than coal
      A new study published in the journal Nature has concluded that
      the growing use of natural gas will result in an overall increase in
      global carbon dioxide emissions – rather than the decrease claimed by
      some analysts.
      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/10/study-finds-natural-gas-no-cleaner-than-coal-20141016641418947.html

      • Warthog

        LOL…ludicrous. The reason Al Jazeera wants to keep natgas from expanding is that the more of it that is produced the greater the output of the “side product” of “gas liquids”, which compete directly with oil as vehicle fuel. And cuts the money flow to their Jihad-financing friends.

        Any chemist can tell you that replacing coal with natgas WILL reduce CO2 emissions, simply because natgas has a much higher hydrogen content, and hence produces more water and less CO2 for the same energy output.

        • georgehants

          Warthog, I think it is clear in my post that Aljazeera are only doing the reporting from a report in the holy grail of science, the journal Nature.
          Perhaps you would like to rewrite your reply?

          • Warthog

            Given “the holy grail of science”‘s track record on LENR, No. This is yet another meaningless exercise in math modelling.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, I can make no sensible reply on the report, other than the Truth is there somewhere and only Research and honesty will find it.
            But we certainly agree on the science comics handling of Cold Fusion etc.

          • Nigel Appleton

            Perhaps one should read the actual Nature paper before pronouncing either way? A novel thought, I know….

        • Nigel Appleton

          Yes, megawatt for megawatt of energy produced, NG is cleaner than coal. And yes, the sheer abundance and ease of use of NG will mean more energy and therefore total CO2 are produced from NG

          The real benefit only kicks in IF coal is REPLACED by NG.

          But the benefit we’d all like to see is fossil fuels replaced by LENR

    • LindbergofSwed

      “Also, the current “reactor” is working between 120 and 500 C with a COP of 3 – 20? That’s big technical news too.”

      In that case MFMP pushing the temp to high?

      • Ged

        All a matter of design I guess, and temperature targets. It unfortunately doesn’t help too much.

      • artefact

        the 500 C is not the internal reactor temperatur, just the water (heat exchanger) temperature.

    • I’ve translated the last slide using google translator, it’s very interesting:

      = Slide 10 / 11 ==============
      LENR Market Strategy
      ——
      The first phase: the production of reactor supply existing markets

      1. Coal power plant
      1MW each need a 20-foot container
      Plan every 1/4 quarterly supply three power plants, construction
      1,800 containers

      2. Conventional energy supply
      Each quarter quarter production capacity of 10,000 containers

      Land needs: 4,000 acres
      (Including the manufacturing base, the new Energy Research Institute, research and development centers, Storage areas)

      —–
      Phase II: the production of engine blocks

      1. Built by 1MW to 3MW mobile generator sets
      2. Construction of 10MW and 20MW of medium-sized generating units

      Land requirements (manufacturing, research and development, warehousing): 3,000 acres
      —–
      First period: sales
      Gross profit each container: RMB 30000 (4723 USD)
      Target sales 50,000, gross profit of approximately 1.5 billion RMB (236 million USD)

      • Buck

        Martin,

        thank you for sharing the translation.

        My first impression is that this is an aggressive growth scenario. It seems driven by the expectation that few problems will occur during the first year of production. However, even if they could only produce 1,000 1MW containers per quarter at first, the impact IMHO would be huge.

        • Owen Geiger

          I wonder where they’ll get enough skilled technicians to run the power plants? That seems like the biggest limiting factor.

          • Buck

            Owen,

            I think it a very understandable limiting factor.

            What we don’t know is the degree of automation for the control system. In addition, we don’t know the nature of the maintenance function.

            If the only maintenance choice is to treat the reactor like a hard drive in a server farm, swap good for bad, then it might be conceivable that the rate of education of skilled technicians would be “high”.

            Time will tell.

          • ecatworld

            AR has said that you will not need to have a staff member dedicated to manage the plant continuously — just someone on staff who is certified by IH in plant operations.

          • Buck

            Frank,

            thank you for the reminder.

            IMO, this means that the staff could likely receive the training during the installation of the E-Cat system and be there for when it is turned on and maybe be under their (IH) supervision for a few days.

            The question is still open on how many may be trained by Rossi/IH as a group over a given week.

      • Brent Buckner

        I note a fit with Rossi’s statements about volume production and pricing. Here we see IH looking to sell a 1MW “container” that would save a customer “conservatively” 2.2 cents per kWh (so $3,696USD *per week* if using full capacity 24/7) with IH realizing a gross profit of $4,723USD per “container”.

      • pg

        4723 USD profit (gross) per container is very low, it may be why Rossi says they will be so cost competitive that it will not make sense to reverse engineer

        • Daniel Maris

          But with income of £236 million per annum you could get a loan of £4 billion…all else being equal, and fund a massive expansion.

        • Eyedoc

          So I’m guessing retail of $5000 USD, not bad.

          • Brent Buckner

            How are you estimating $273 USD to construct the 1MW container?

      • Daniel Maris

        Thanks – that is v. interesting. I don’t think I’ve seen that sort of business planning to date.

  • Ged

    There is a lot of very interesting details here, including the cost effectiveness of the current “reactor” (3 cents per kwh, maybe as low as 1.5).

    Also, the current “reactor” is working between 120 and 500 C with a COP of 3 – 20? That’s big technical news too.

    Even more, they state “the reactor” is more reliable than other technologies (as well as other major benefits from it, since this is marketing of course), which is another majorly interesting point given the ongoing reliability test. Seems IH is satisfied “the reactor” is highly reliable; at least competitively so.

    This presentation is a gold mine.

    If anyone can translate the third to last slide’s diagram, there is a ton of important information there I would like to know.

    Edit: I also notice the “see slide 12” footnote for the cost per kilowatt figure, saying there is more details on “the reactor” on that slide. However, that slide does not exist in this release. Very interesting. Might be confidential information, as the rest of the presentation does a great job not talking about “the reactor”‘s details directly.

    • LindbergofSwed

      “Also, the current “reactor” is working between 120 and 500 C with a COP of 3 – 20? That’s big technical news too.”

      In that case MFMP pushing the temp to high?

      • Ged

        All a matter of design I guess, and temperature targets. It unfortunately doesn’t help too much.

      • artefact

        the 500 C is not the internal reactor temperatur, just the water (heat exchanger) temperature.

  • Nigel Appleton

    And meanwhile the Chinese are going to be building a conventional nuclear reactor for power, at VAST cost in both capital and power generated, for our head-in-the-sand UK government.

    Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, our government!

  • Nigel Appleton

    And meanwhile the Chinese are going to be building a conventional nuclear reactor for power, at VAST cost in both capital and power generated, for our head-in-the-sand UK government.

    Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, our government!

    • Hi all

      Osborne also bought the North Sea oil fields from BP and the other Big Oil companies, didn’t the fact that they were all selling up tell him anything?

      Kind Regards walker

    • Gerard McEk

      Not only conventional nuclear reactors. They have started to develop a Thorium reactor (Molten Salt). There is a considerable push to develop this type of reactor elsewhere also. Only the ‘western countries’ neglect this development, whereas this would be a serious alternative for nuclear power. If LENR would take-off than that alternative will not be developed…. although, I expect that LENR in combination with thorium can be a very interesting power source.

  • keV

    Sounds like cop 3-20 includes SSM – since 3 has always been Rossi’s “guaranteed” cop number.

    • artefact

      It was always 6.
      But the pdf is from 2013…

  • keV

    Sounds like cop 3-20 includes SSM – since 3 has always been Rossi’s “guaranteed” cop number.

    • artefact

      It was always 6.
      But the pdf is from 2013…

  • Daniel Maris

    A question: do we know who gave the presentation?

    • Ged

      The title card, and some sort of information specific about the device (the missing slide 12) has been removed, from what it seems. Probably confidentiality stuff. But we see Tom Darden shaking hands with people, which seems to be from the same event, so it could have been him.

      • Daniel Maris

        Thanks. Noted.

      • Gerard McEk

        I would doubt that confidential Ecat information would be shared with the Chinese. I expect it would be more business confidential (agreements and the like) stuff.

        • Ged

          Agreed. Stuff I’d like to see, but understandably they can’t share.

  • TheTruthIsOutThere

    If you see the properties of the document author of it is John Vaughn

  • Interesting info in the Chinese reports:
    – Sino-US Science and Technology International Innovation Park was inaugurated on Oct 18 in the presence of Tom Darden.
    – The park will initially have more than 20 companies from the US and other countries, and investments of 15 bln yuan (USD 2.5 bln) are made.
    – fields involved are “Internet +”, low-carbon environmental protection, new energy, new materials, bio-medicine, high-end equipment manufacturing.
    – “The two sides reached a consensus, the introduction of advanced US technology and innovative ideas.”
    – “Thomas Darden hints: Most American innovation opportunities come from scientific and technological innovation-oriented enterprises. (…) I hope to replicate Triangle Park, North Carolina Business mode (…) in China to attract more US technology companies and Chinese enterprises to grow.”

    I don’t think I have to remind how important a clean, cheap and abundant energy source such as LENR would be for China today, with its disastrous use of coal. And how easy it would be for a country like China to push rollout of LENR technologies without much discussions on how to regulate them.

  • Interesting info in the Chinese reports:
    – Sino-US Science and Technology International Innovation Park was inaugurated on Oct 18 in the presence of Tom Darden.
    – The park will initially have more than 20 companies from the US and other countries, and investments of 15 bln yuan (USD 2.5 bln) are made.
    – fields involved are “Internet +”, low-carbon environmental protection, new energy, new materials, bio-medicine, high-end equipment manufacturing.
    – “The two sides reached a consensus, the introduction of advanced US technology and innovative ideas.”
    – “Thomas Darden hints: Most American innovation opportunities come from scientific and technological innovation-oriented enterprises. (…) I hope to replicate Triangle Park, North Carolina Business mode (…) in China to attract more US technology companies and Chinese enterprises to grow.”

    I don’t think I have to remind how important a clean, cheap and abundant energy source such as LENR would be for China today, with its disastrous use of coal. And how easy it would be for a country like China to push rollout of LENR technologies without much discussions on how to regulate them.

  • Already when I first reported on Rossi in 2011 he estimated the energy cost to 1 cent per electric kWh, 0.3 cents per thermal kWh.
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3124295.ece
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3081694.ece
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3073394.ece (in Swedish – my first report ever, just after the public demo in January 2011.)

    • clovis ray

      Thanks for the info Mats, wow this is the start of the revolution, sounds like the mib have their hands all over it,

  • georgehants

    Aljazeera
    Study finds natural gas no cleaner than coal
    A new study published in the journal Nature has concluded that
    the growing use of natural gas will result in an overall increase in
    global carbon dioxide emissions – rather than the decrease claimed by
    some analysts.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/10/study-finds-natural-gas-no-cleaner-than-coal-20141016641418947.html

    • Warthog

      LOL…ludicrous. The reason Al Jazeera wants to keep natgas from expanding is that the more of it that is produced the greater the output of the “side product” of “gas liquids”, which compete directly with oil as vehicle fuel. And cuts the money flow to their Jihad-financing friends.

      Any chemist can tell you that replacing coal with natgas WILL reduce CO2 emissions, simply because natgas has a much higher hydrogen content, and hence produces more water and less CO2 for the same energy output.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, I think it is clear in my post that Aljazeera are only doing the reporting from a report in the holy grail of science, “the journal Nature”.
        Perhaps you would like to rewrite your reply?

        • Warthog

          Given “the holy grail of science”‘s track record on LENR, No. This is yet another meaningless exercise in math modelling.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, I can make no sensible reply on the report, other than the Truth is out there somewhere and only Research and honesty will find it.
            But we certainly agree on the science comics handling of Cold Fusion etc.

        • Nigel Appleton

          Perhaps one should read the actual Nature paper before pronouncing either way? A novel thought, I know….

      • Natural gas production and transportation leaks methane like crazy all over the place. that’s why it’s not better than coal (green house effect wise).

        http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/methane-leakage-from-natural-gas-supply-chain-could-be-higher-than-previously-estimated/

        • Warthog

          Hyperbolic prejudice much?? You need to remember that what is leaking is PRODUCT for sale. It is in the interest of the producers to see that such leakage is kept to a minimum. Is there some leakage??? Yes. “..leaks methane like crazy all over the place…”. No.

          Also note that three of the eight “high leakage” sites are LANDFILLS, which have precisely nothing to do with natgas production.

          • you missed the point entirely. the amount of methane leakage discovered recently is quite substantial. substantial enough to make natural gas not even as clean as coal re: GHG emissions. and as far as what is in the industry’s interest…. plugging all those leaks is more expensive than not. The only reason the industry is going to try is because of new regulations from Obama. electrons don’t leak very often and certainly don’t cause catastrophic climate disruptions so yes, I’m biased. but for good reasons.

          • Warthog

            Dude, I’m from Louisiana (major oil and natgas producing state). My wife taught petroleum engineering at a major university.My sister-in-law is a geophysicist in Houston. I “think” I have a better handle on what does and doesn’t motivate the oil biz than you. And that is NOT letting their product leak out into the air. You can be sure that once the causes of leakage are identified, steps will be taken to reduce them.

            And I call your attention once again to the fact that a major contributor to the emissions were LANDFILLS. What do you plan to do about “those” emissions?? Fixing the oil/gas leaks will be as simple as re-designing or replacing various seals, and perhaps modifying a few process steps…..landfills don’t HAVE seals.

          • answer me this since you’re so in the know. how many abandoned fracked wells are there in north america and how many of them leak methane? who is going to be motivated to fix that? NOBODY THAT’S WHO.

            meanwhile landfill emissions can be captured and used to produce energy for the landfill operator. it’s been done frequently and can be done without much hassle.

            also methane producing garbage can be and increasingly is being diverted from landfills so the problem will lessen over time.

            but all of that is besides the point. you still can’t honestly show that gas has an overall lower carbon footprint than coal.

          • Wartjpg

            The answer to the first point is “none”. When wells are abandoned, they are plugged by pumping concrete down the well bore. This is required by law.

            As to “capturing” landfill methane, the gulf between “can be” and “are” is huge.

            Sure I can:

            CH4 + O2 –> CO2 + H2O (natural gas)

            C6H6 + O2 —> 6CO2 + H2O

            (substituting benzene for the “polynuclear chickenwire” that is coal.)

            It really “is” as simple as that.

            And of course, the use of natural gas in NEW generating plants makes use of combined-cycle gas turbine/steam turbine units of far greater efficiency than the coal-fired steam units.

          • Warthog you are clearly uniformed about 2 things:

            1) ubiquitous industry related methane leaks (much from “closed” wells) and 2) methane’s extraordinary effectiveness at trapping heat.

            Please examine the following:

            1) http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/

            2) https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas

          • just one well… out of thousands.

            an extreme example …. or is it?

            “Natural gas leak that’s sickening Valley residents could take months to fix”
            http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-1121-gas-leak-20151121-story.html

            “To date, the leak has released the equivalent of 0.80 million metric
            tons of carbon dioxide, the air board estimates, about the same amount
            of emissions as driving 160,000 cars for a year or consuming 90 million
            gallons of gas.”

      • Nigel Appleton

        Yes, megawatt for megawatt of energy produced, NG is cleaner than coal. And yes, the sheer abundance and ease of use of NG will mean more energy and therefore total CO2 are produced from NG

        The real benefit only kicks in IF coal is REPLACED by NG.

        But the benefit we’d all like to see is fossil fuels replaced by LENR

  • Already when I first reported on Rossi in 2011 he estimated the energy cost to 1 cent per electric kWh, 0.3 cents per thermal kWh.
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3124295.ece
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3081694.ece
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3073394.ece (in Swedish – my first report ever, just after the public demo in January 2011.)

    • clovis ray

      Thanks for the info Mats, wow this is the start of the revolution,

    • BillH

      A trip back to 2011, nice, how things have changed, or have they? I must say I’m now a bit deflated regarding the slideshow in this thread though. I was ready to praise IH for finally pinning there colours to the mast, but it seems this presentation may have been given in 2014 or even 2013, so it might not even relate to any of the current reactor designs. The wait goes on…

      • Brent Buckner

        Yes, but on the upside we might think of this as IH confirming that Rossi’s 2011 estimate was in the ballpark respective of the reactor design of (not later than) 2014 – from there, I would expect reactor changes to improve the economics.

        Further, we now know some of the projections that IH has made to people of standing in China. We know that IH has taken in tens of millions of dollars. It seems to me that they “pinned their colours to the mast” some time back – but only in sight of those they preferred to work with to make those projections happen.

  • “The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4% of global energy now comes from solar and wind. Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2% of global energy.”
    ___________

    Well, the levelized costs of electricity on the chart are all wrong. Wind and solar are much more expensive than claimed due to the unreliability and intermittency factors. Solar and wind are pipedream fantasy solutions that make no economic sense whatsoever except in special circumstances, such as off grid cabins in the woods and using solar to power remote weather stations. The fission costs are probably only true for the Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor concept. Wind is great for pumping water on farms, but nothing more. Socialism does not work and socialized energy policy is very destructive. The free market should rule energy policy, and the free market on its own will reject solar, wind, and biofuels, and reward LENR and simplified hot fusion if they can produce electricity at the projected low cost. We should subsidize and mandate nothing and instead champion free choice for energy consumers.

    • Swanson’s Law is an observation that the price of solar photovoltaic modules tends to drop 20 percent for every doubling of cumulative shipped volume. At present rates, costs halve about every 10 years. (Wikipedia)
      Worldwide growth of photovoltaics has been fitting an exponential curve for more than two decades. During this period of time, photovoltaics has evolved from a pure niche market of small scale applications towards becoming a mainstream electricity source. (Wikipedia)

      There are many other sources for these observations. Even though I think that LENR has a huge potential for distributed energy production, I don’t think you should count solar out. Given the decreasing cost, solar will be an extremely simple and easily accessible energy source in many situations and places.

      • Tell it to someone who believes in fairies, leprechauns, and hobbits. The renewable energy cult of emotion (not logic) has been selling this kind of nonsense for decades and all they have done is rob taxpayers of money, increase budget deficits, and increase unemployment and the cost of food. After all of that destruction, they have not even reduced the Earth’s CO2 output.

        • Daniel Maris

          Mats is right. The unsubsidised price of wind is already lower than nuclear and coal and the price of solar has been plummeting for several decades so that it too is price competitive with other energy sources in much of the world. In addition, you have to factor in that if you are substituting wind and solar for imported gas or coal, then you are gaining hugely in terms of your balance of payments and your domestic employment (i.e. GDP).

          We haven’t seen the end of sizeable price reductions. The cost of replacing wind turbines will be much cheaper than building them from scratch, now that we have the towers and network there. We could be accessing higher wind speeds through tethered turbines. PV panel manufacture and efficiency will continue to improve leading to significant price reductions, as will general economies of scale. WIth PV energy we may soon be able to tap solar radiation in orbit and beam it down to Earth, as the Japanese are working on. At the same time the price of energy storage is falling dramatically.

          Put it all together and I see no reason why, even without LENR, green energy won’t win out within 20 -30 years.

          I think your figures are out of date. Renewables are more than just wind and solar in any case (there’s biomass, energy from waste, geothermal, hydro, tidal, wave and current to consider as well), and renewable energy is already responsible for over 9% of world power generation, as set out in this data pack.

          http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/attachments/unep_fs_globaltrends2015_chartpack.pdf

          • Most wind turbines and solar panels are made in China, so how does forcing consumers to pay higher electricity costs so that Chinese factories can make more money improve our balance of trade? Wind and solar are all about symbolism over substance. If they were economic they would not need forced mandates and subsidies. We need to end all mandates and subsidies and let consumers decide how to spend their money. I have no sympathy at all for the renewable energy cult. They distort the proven facts, and they never take responsibility for all the people they have starved, all the jobs that have been lost, and all the environmental damage they have created.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQMBdcbMTc

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, do away with all stop signs, the first one to the intersection wins: crash!

          • Daniel Maris

            Well Christopher, it’s surprising that it isn’t the Danes and Germans who are walking around in rags, given that they are spearheading the use of wind and solar – according to your beliefs, that is.

            The cost of the equipment for wind and solar is only part of the overall cost. German and Danish firms still install and service the equipment.

            Subsidies for onshore wind power are being phased out for the very good reason that it is becoming increasingly price competitive, but it would never have reached this level of competitiveness without the subsidy regime that helped develop the industry.

            Consumers making their own decisions doesn’t always lead to good outcomes – that’s why we saw municipalities take over gas and water supply in the UK in the 19th century, and the later creation of a state backed national grid which eventually put a halt to outages.

    • invient

      >Socialism does not work and socialized energy policy is very destructive.

      There are market socialist economists. Capitalism does not have a monopoly on the use of markets (See Richard Wolff, or Parecon).

  • “The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4% of global energy now comes from solar and wind. Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2% of global energy.”
    ___________

    Well, the levelized costs of electricity on the chart are all wrong. Wind and solar are much more expensive than claimed due to the unreliability and intermittency factors. Solar and wind are pipedream fantasy solutions that make no economic sense whatsoever except in special circumstances, such as off grid cabins in the woods and using solar to power remote weather stations. The fission costs are probably only true for the Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor concept. Wind is great for pumping water on farms, but nothing more. Socialism does not work and socialized energy policy is very destructive. The free market should rule energy policy, and the free market on its own will reject solar, wind, and biofuels, and reward LENR and simplified hot fusion if they can produce electricity at the projected low cost. We should subsidize and mandate nothing and instead champion free choice for energy consumers.

    • Swanson’s Law is an observation that the price of solar photovoltaic modules tends to drop 20 percent for every doubling of cumulative shipped volume. At present rates, costs halve about every 10 years. (Wikipedia)
      Worldwide growth of photovoltaics has been fitting an exponential curve for more than two decades. During this period of time, photovoltaics has evolved from a pure niche market of small scale applications towards becoming a mainstream electricity source. (Wikipedia)

      There are many other sources for these observations. Even though I think that LENR has a huge potential for distributed energy production, I don’t think you should count solar out. Given the decreasing cost, solar will be an extremely simple and easily accessible energy source in many situations and places.

      • Tell it to someone who believes in fairies, leprechauns, and hobbits. The renewable energy cult of emotion (not logic) has been selling this kind of nonsense for decades and all they have done is rob taxpayers of money, increase budget deficits, and increase unemployment and the cost of food. After all of that destruction, they have not even reduced the Earth’s CO2 output.

    • invient

      >Socialism does not work and socialized energy policy is very destructive.

      There are market socialist economists. Capitalism does not have a monopoly on the use of markets (See Richard Wolff, or Parecon).

    • fact police

      “The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4% of global energy now comes from solar and wind. Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2% of global energy.”

      This is totally misleading. You have quotes around that, suggesting it is an IEA quote, but in fact, it’s a quote from Lomborg, the skeptical environmentalist. I did not find such an estimate in the link he provides. He says “now”, but the data in that link is from 2013. The IEA predicts that by 2040, “Renewables overtake coal to become the leading source of power.”

      If you check the the same source for data for Aug 2015 (www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_es1a), you find that wind and solar account for 4% of the global total electrical power production. And for the full year 2014, it’s slightly lower at 3.8%. And it is growing at 50% (solar) and 28%(wind) per year, meaning it’s been doubling every 2 or 3 years for a while now.

      Now to get 0.4% of the “global energy” in 2013 Lomborg probably divided by the total *primary* energy consumption, which is quite wrong. It takes 3 units of primary energy to make one unit of electricity, or to put it another way, 1 J of electrical energy from wind replaces 3 J of primary energy from fossil fuels. In fact, in the same paragraph you took that quote from, he acknowledges that electricity accounts for 42% of primary consumption, even though by his way of calculating, it would only be 13%.

      All of which means that if wind and solar account for 4% of electricity, then they account for about 1.6% of the global primary energy consumption, a factor of 4 higher than what you claimed.

      Well, the levelized costs of electricity on the chart are all wrong. Wind and solar are much more expensive than claimed due to the unreliability and intermittency factors. Solar and wind are pipedream fantasy solutions that make no economic sense whatsoever except in special circumstances, such as off grid cabins in the woods and using solar to power remote weather stations.

      With a suitably large-scale grid, and a variety of power sources, unreliability and intermittency do not have to add significant cost. As long as variable power sources like hydro or fossil provide a substantial share of the power, then every kWh put on the grid from solar is one less needed from fossil fuels. Of course, if we ever hope to replace fossil sources, then new storage technology, or much larger scale grids will be needed. There is time for these solutions to be developed. In the mean time, it is not a fantasy to push forward on as many fronts as possible to establish infrastructure for whatever energy sources we end up depending on. I think simply dismissing wind and solar is short sighted. Many people similarly dismissed things like aviation.

      • Wind and solar have been around for many decades. The basics are not going to change. They are inherently unreliable and cannot survive in the marketplace to any significant extent without subsidies and mandates.

        http://www.energytribune.com/10908/wind-energy-the-wheels-are-coming-off-the-gravy-train#sthash.mZmssVmw.dpbs

        The energy solution has to be some form of nuclear energy because it is the only energy reservoir that has a higher energy density than fossil fuels. You cannot replace a banquet with a potato chip. We have three possible solutions. The best solution is LENR if we can make it reliable. A close second is simplified hot fusion such as the Lockheed Martin device. The third solution is lower cost, inherently safer nuclear fission reactors such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor being developed in China. Government should spend reasonable amounts of money of research in these areas, but never spend a dime on subsidies and mandates. The marketplace is the true test of value. Products that really work do not need a Mafia style government to put a gun to people’s heads and tell them you must buy my product.

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/007jlljc.asp?pg=1

        • fact police

          Wind and solar have been around for many decades. The basics are not going to change.

          They have been around for decades, and in the last decade the growth has been 30 to 50 % per year. Costs for solar have been dropping steadily during that time, and storage technology has been improving. The possibility for larger scale grids cannot be dismissed, and newer generation geothermal might progress to provide intermittency relief, along with hydro and nuclear.

          The outright dismissal of wind and solar and the possibility of storage seems extremely short sighted. Fossil fuels, after all, represent stored solar energy. There is every reason to expect faster methods could be made economical. The cost of solar energy per unit energy does not increase if you make a larger farm, and store the energy for use in the dark. The additional cost is only from the cost of storage.

          Attempts at aviation had been around for centuries. It’s a good thing not everyone thought like you or flight would never have been conquered.

          Moreover, LENR has been around for decades too, and it has yet to produce any practical power at all. The worst we can do is sit around and be pessimistic about solar and over-optimistic about LENR.

          They are inherently unreliable and cannot survive in the marketplace to any significant extent without subsidies and mandates.

          If by unreliable, you mean intermittent, then yes, on a small scale, they are inherently intermittent. The technology is *not* inherently unreliable. And intermittency can be mitigated by larger grids and storage technology.

          At present coal power is cheaper if you ignore costs of pollution and carbon sequestration. But if we were force to pay for those costs up front, it’s not obvious wind and solar could not compete now. But even if they are more expensive now, it gives arguably better value.

          Subsidies are an investment in the future, and like most investments, it’s a bit of a gamble, but in the opinion of many, one well worth taking.

          It is perfectly legitimate for people to be concerned about the state in which we leave our planet for future generations. And greed is not a good enough reason to play fast and loose with finite resources and ecological equilibria, let alone knowingly change the balance of greenhouse gases by an appreciable amount without any clear idea of the (possibly catastrophic) consequences. *That’s* a risk *not* worth taking.

          What makes you think the current cost of energy is somehow sacred, and must not be increased for any reason? If we have achieved our current standard of living by irresponsible stewardship of the planet’s resources, then we should be prepared to sacrifice some of our wealth in the interest of our descendants. If that involves subsidizing wind and solar, it’s fine by me.

          The energy solution has to be some form of nuclear energy because it is the only energy reservoir that has a higher energy density than fossil fuels.

          Hey, I’m a big supporter of nuclear energy, but energy density is not the most important metric. The important metrics are abundance, safety, environmental friendliness, and economy. And while I would argue that nuclear (in some form) is certainly competitive (or potentially competitive) on all those metrics, it doesn’t help if it’s unacceptable to the public because of irrational fear.

          The best policy is vigorous investigation of all technologies that (in the estimation of experts) show significant promise. That includes nuclear fission (classical and uranium and thorium breeders), fusion, geothermal, wind, solar, biomass, hydro, algae, and others.

          You cannot replace a banquet with a potato chip.

          Nor is anyone proposing to. You can replace big macs and french fries with a more balanced and healthy diet, but it might be more expensive.

          We have three possible solutions. The best solution is LENR if we can make it reliable.

          LENR would be the best solution if it can be shown to be real. But so far, it’s been decades with most scientists unconvinced. Without proof of principle established, this remains an unlikely contributor.

          A close second is simplified hot fusion such as the Lockheed Martin device.

          The same applies here. Proof of principle is still a well kept secret. But yes, I agree, if it works, it’s the cat’s ass.

          The third solution is lower cost, inherently safer nuclear fission reactors such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor being developed in China.

          Definitely a contender, but I wouldn’t ignore uranium breeders or for interim energy, conventional fission, which, in spite of Chernobyl and Fukushima, is 100 times better for the environment and people than coal.

          But the most likely future will be a mix of many technologies, all of which should be pursued. Even large-scale hot fusion should be pursued, even if the benefits are a century in the future. If it ever succeeds, and these other fusion dreams don’t, it could well be the only solution needed. And the cost is pretty modest compared to what’s spent on other types of energy.

          Government should spend reasonable amounts of money of research in these areas, but never spend a dime on subsidies and mandates.

          This is an artificial distinction. Subsidies for solar and wind represent research investment. The only reason the cost of solar panels has come down is because subsidies allow economies of scale to be tested with various technologies.

          The marketplace is the true test of value. Products that really work do not need a Mafia style government to put a gun to people’s heads and tell them you must buy my product.

          And this is ideological extremism. Significant improvements in air quality, acid rain, and ozone layer, can all be correlated with government regulations like the clean-air act, and requirements for catalytic converters and unleaded gas, and restrictions on CFCs and so on. The free market is a good thing, but sometimes a little guidance from a democratic voice helps.

  • ss dd

    I wonder if Rossi has been misleading us a bit; maybe they are closer to F9 than has been communicated?

    • Ged

      IH apparently thinks so. Considering this presentation states it “[g]enerates energy more consistently, on a larger scale and with lower
      input costs and higher energy density than other technologies”, especially the consistently part, it seems they already view the reliability test a complete success if they are willing to say its consistency is an advantage over other power technologies.

    • ss dd

      I’m now realizing the slideshow is at least 1 or 2 years old?? So this wouldn’t give much info about how close to F9 we are now

  • ss dd

    I wonder if Rossi has been misleading us a bit; maybe they are closer to F9 than has been communicated?

    • Ged

      IH apparently thinks so. Considering this presentation states it “[g]enerates energy more consistently, on a larger scale and with lower input costs and higher energy density than other technologies”, especially the consistently part, it seems they already view the reliability test a complete success if they are willing to say its consistency is an advantage over other power technologies.

    • ss dd

      I’m now realizing the slideshow is at least 1 or 2 years old?? So this wouldn’t give much info about how close to F9 we are now

  • ss dd

    Seems like September 25, 2014 is another relevant date given the file and folder name?

  • ss dd

    A google search for: “site:http://chinauspark.com/ LENR ” seems to confirm the file has been uploaded in September 2014. This corresponds to the folder and file name “20140925”. And some people have found that the file was created in 2013.

    So this seems to be pretty old, and probably has been online for a year already!

    • Hi all

      So now we know how far behind the curve public information is. This is how far ahead those who first received this information in a briefing are in terms of their investment decisions. It is market information like this that allowed those in the know to short oil and make billions in June 2014. That the owners of media outlets can make a lot of money off knowing this when others do not would go a long way to explaining why the information is censored on main stream media.

      In other words the market is fixed like LIBOR or mortgage backed securities.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Owen Geiger

        Be a contrarian. If the idiot tube says do X then do Y. It works for me.

    • Ged

      Dang, I was hoping to get new technical details we hadn’t seen before, not old technical details we hadn’t seen before.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Explains the focus on “Nickel”

  • ss dd

    A google search for: “site:http://chinauspark.com/ LENR ” seems to confirm the file has been uploaded in September 2014. This corresponds to the folder and file name “20140925”. And some people have found that the file was created in 2013.

    So this seems to be pretty old, and probably has been online for a year already!

    • Hi all

      So now we know how far behind the curve public information is. This is how far ahead those who first received this information in a briefing are in terms of their investment decisions. It is market information like this that allowed those in the know to short oil and make billions in June 2014. That the owners of media outlets can make a lot of money off knowing this when others do not would go a long way to explaining why the information is censored on main stream media.

      In other words the market is fixed like LIBOR or mortgage backed securities.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Owen Geiger

        Be a contrarian. If the idiot tube says do X then do Y. It works for me.

    • Ged

      Dang, I was hoping to get new technical details we hadn’t seen before, not old technical details we hadn’t seen before.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Explains the focus on “Nickel”

  • ss dd

    Other presentations uploaded on the same day (20140925) on that website seem to confirm that the presentations have been done in 2013, probably Oct 13, 2013 (see first slide and bottom of slides)

    http://www.chinauspark.com/appUpdata/file/20140925/20140925143757_0693.pdf

    http://www.chinauspark.com/appUpdata/file/20140925/20140925152502_5341.pdf

    Same date mentioned earlier in the comments by Wenzi:

    “Atril pdf-viewer shows this File/Properties info for the 20140925152226_9375.pdf file:

    Creator: John Vaughn
    Microsoft® PowerPoint® 2010
    Created/Modified: Sunday 13 October 2013”

  • ss dd

    Other presentations uploaded on the same day (20140925) on that website seem to confirm that the presentations have been done in 2013, probably Oct 13, 2013 (see first slide and bottom of slides)

    http://www.chinauspark.com/appUpdata/file/20140925/20140925143757_0693.pdf

    http://www.chinauspark.com/appUpdata/file/20140925/20140925152502_5341.pdf

    Same date mentioned earlier in the comments by Wenzi:

    “Atril pdf-viewer shows this File/Properties info for the 20140925152226_9375.pdf file:

    Creator: John Vaughn
    Microsoft® PowerPoint® 2010
    Created/Modified: Sunday 13 October 2013”

  • radvar

    Thank goodness that Chinese billionaire entrepreneurs are inhibited from exploring LENR by Western scientific materialism dogma and corporatist cabalism. Oh wait…

  • Fyodor

    Given that Rossi hasn’t yet created in quantity an E-cat reactor that can produce heat at temperatures high enough for electricity AND Rossi hasn’t yet figured out how to generate electricity continuously from his few Hot-Cat prototypes, it seems kind of ridiculous to talk about levelized costs of electricity.

    • ss dd

      Especially in 2013?

    • Warthog

      There are low-temperature generating cycles that would work quite nicely with the original E-cat. Of course, higher temps are better

  • Fyodor

    Given that Rossi hasn’t yet created in quantity an E-cat reactor that can produce heat at temperatures high enough for electricity AND Rossi hasn’t yet figured out how to generate electricity continuously from his few Hot-Cat prototypes, it seems kind of ridiculous to talk about levelized costs of electricity.

    • ss dd

      Especially in 2013?

    • Warthog

      There are low-temperature generating cycles that would work quite nicely with the original E-cat. Of course, higher temps are better

  • HS61AF91

    If we do not take advantage of Obama’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline, and sing out
    loud the praises of LENR right now, then we are missing the boat. To provide an example of what I refer to, here is my comment on the Keystone announcement in the Stars and Stripes article; “Killing Keystone XL, Obama says pipeline not in US interests” reprinted to day from the AP. my (pending as of this moment) comment is: ”
    You’re right Mr. Pres. but for the wrong reason. With new technology near free energy reactors (read LENR) about to explode upon the market, who needs that greasy, dirty, polutting, stinking, and unhealthy shale oil transported across the country like an accident waiting to happen!
    See the American company Industrial Heat’s slide presentation to get an appreciation of what’s about to explode into the energy scene: http://www.lenr-forum.com/foru… The Chinese are paying attention to LENR – Low Energy Nickel Reaction

  • HS61AF91

    If we do not take advantage of Obama’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline, and sing out
    loud the praises of LENR right now, then we are missing the boat. To provide an example of what I refer to, here is my comment on the Keystone announcement in the Stars and Stripes article; “Killing Keystone XL, Obama says pipeline not in US interests” reprinted to day from the AP. my (pending as of this moment) comment is: ”
    You’re right Mr. Pres. but for the wrong reason. With new technology near free energy reactors (read LENR) about to explode upon the market, who needs that greasy, dirty, polutting, stinking, and unhealthy shale oil transported across the country like an accident waiting to happen!
    See the American company Industrial Heat’s slide presentation to get an appreciation of what’s about to explode into the energy scene: http://www.lenr-forum.com/foru… The Chinese are paying attention to LENR – Low Energy Nickel Reaction

    • BillH

      Unfortunate use of the word “explode”, twice!

      • HS61AF91

        maybe permeate would have been a better choice, but explode exploded upon me

      • HS61AF91

        Well I made a calmed-down with ‘permeate’ vice ‘explode’ version of my comment and S&S printed both! The polite version is:

        “The Administration is correct, to halt the Keystone Pipeline.
        Coincidentally this assists with the coming out of new technology; near
        free energy reactors, which are about to permeate the market. For
        example the company Industrial Heat’s slide show provides an
        appreciation of what’s about to occur: click: “Industrial Heat Slideshow
        Posted” article on E-Cat World. The slides refer to LENR (Low Energy
        Nickel Reaction). Be that as it may, it is a benefit to our land to not
        have shale oil transported from the northern border with Canada, to the
        southern states, hoping no leaks or mishaps ever take place.”

        I guess it depends on a person’s disposition as to which version may be more absorbed.

  • Warthog

    Hyperbolic prejudice much?? You need to remember that what is leaking is PRODUCT for sale. It is in the interest of the producers to see that such leakage is kept to a minimum. Is there some leakage??? Yes. “..leaks methane like crazy all over the place…”. No.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      you missed the point entirely. the amount of methane leakage discovered recently is quite substantial. substantial enough to make natural gas not even as clean as coal re: GHG emissions. and as far as what is in the industry’s interest…. plugging all those leaks is more expensive than not. The only reason the industry is going to try is because of new regulations from Obama. electrons don’t leak very often and certainly don’t cause catastrophic climate disruptions so yes, I’m biased. but for good reasons.

      • Warthog

        Dude, I’m from Louisiana (major oil and natgas producing state). My wife taught petroleum engineering at a major university.My sister-in-law is a geophysicist in Houston. I “think” I have a better handle on what does and doesn’t motivate the oil biz than you. And that is NOT letting their product leak out into the air. You can be sure that once the causes of leakage are identified, steps will be taken to reduce them.

        And I call your attention once again to the fact that a major contributor to the emissions were LANDFILLS. What do you plan to do about “those” emissions?? Fixing the oil/gas leaks will be as simple as re-designing or replacing various seals, and perhaps modifying a few process steps…..landfills don’t HAVE seals.

  • HS61AF91

    maybe permeate would have been a better choice, but explode exploded upon me

  • Daniel Maris
  • I’ve translated the last slide using google translator, it’s very interesting:

    = Slide 10 / 11 ==============
    LENR Market Strategy
    ——
    The first phase: the production of reactor supply existing markets

    1. Coal power plant
    1MW each need a 20-foot container
    Plan every 1/4 quarterly supply three power plants, construction
    1,800 containers

    2. Conventional energy supply
    Each quarter quarter production capacity of 10,000 containers

    Land needs: 4,000 acres
    (Including the manufacturing base, the new Energy Research Institute, research and development centers, Storage areas)

    —–
    Phase II: the production of engine blocks

    1. Built by 1MW to 3MW mobile generator sets
    2. Construction of 10MW and 20MW of medium-sized generating units

    Land requirements (manufacturing, research and development, warehousing): 3,000 acres
    —–
    First period: sales
    Gross profit each container: RMB 30000 (4723 USD)
    Target sales 50,000, gross profit of approximately 1.5 billion RMB (236 million USD)

    • Buck

      Martin,

      thank you for sharing the translation.

      My first impression is that this is an aggressive growth scenario. It seems driven by the expectation that few problems will occur during the first year of production. However, even if they could only produce 1,000 1MW containers per quarter at first, the impact IMHO would be huge.

      • Owen Geiger

        I wonder where they’ll get enough skilled technicians to run the power plants? That seems like the biggest limiting factor.

        • Buck

          Owen,

          I think it a very understandable limiting factor.

          What we don’t know is the degree of automation for the control system. In addition, we don’t know the nature of the maintenance function.

          If the only maintenance choice is to treat the reactor like a hard drive in a server farm, swap good for bad, then it might be conceivable that the rate of education of skilled technicians would be “high”.

          Time will tell.

          • Frank Acland

            AR has said that you will not need to have a staff member dedicated to manage the plant continuously — just someone on staff who is certified by IH in plant operations.

          • Buck

            Frank,

            thank you for the reminder.

            IMO, this means that the staff could likely receive the training during the installation of the E-Cat system and be there for when it is turned on and maybe be under their (IH) supervision for a few days.

            The question is still open on how many may be trained by Rossi/IH as a group over a given week.

    • Brent Buckner

      I note a fit with Rossi’s statements about volume production and pricing. Here we see IH looking to sell a 1MW “container” that would save a customer “conservatively” 2.2 cents per kWh (so $3,696USD *per week* if using full capacity 24/7) with IH realizing a gross profit of $4,723USD per “container”.

    • pg

      4723 USD profit (gross) per container is very low, it may be why Rossi says they will be so cost competitive that it will not make sense to reverse engineer

      • Eyedoc

        So I’m guessing retail of $5000 USD, not bad.

        • Brent Buckner

          How are you estimating $273 USD to construct the 1MW container?

  • Brent Buckner

    Yes, but on the upside we might think of this as IH confirming that Rossi’s 2011 estimate was in the ballpark respective of the reactor design of (not later than) 2014 – from there, I would expect reactor changes to improve the economics.

    Further, we now know some of the projections that IH has made to people of standing in China. We know that IH has taken in tens of millions of dollars. It seems to me that they “pinned their colours to the mast” some time back – but only in sight of those they preferred to work with to make those projections happen.

  • Low Energy “Nickel” Reaction, what a great idea. Nuclear is such a bad PR word.

    • Yes, not bad. However, if it’s nuclear, which everything indicates it is, this will not be possible to ignore.

      • “Nickel Reactor” might make for a good sales pitch.

      • clovis ray

        Hi, Mats.
        what besides a tiny amounts of radiation emitted, at the beginning, of the effect. Do you see that is nuclear, a small amount of transmutation explains that, what else do you see, that might be nuclear, btw i hate nuclear power plants, they need to be ban from our earth, totally, it’s a bad thing and must go.

        • This is the very core of all LENR/cold fusion observations – the amount of energy released is way to much to much i relation to the materia being used, for being chemical reactions. Therefore it has to be a nuclear reaction (nuclear reactions release about a million times more energy than chemical from the same amount of material/fuel), but the good thing, which is also what has not yet been explained in an generally accepted way, is that LENR reactions are [almost] radiation free. Exactly what kind of nuclear reaction they are, or how they occur, have not yet been explained either. But they must be nuclear.
          Good thing: High energy density, a million times more than oil etc
          Good thing: Radiation free [‘miracle’]
          Good thing: No radioactive fuel
          Good thing: No radioactive waste
          Good thing: Relatively low temperatures [‘miracle’, if it were to be fusion]

          • clovis ray

            Mats,

            I agree with your synopsis of the Rossi effect , And I like this part,

            , but the good thing, which is also what has not yet been explained in an generally accepted way, is that LENR reactions are [almost] radiation free. along with all the other good things you mentioned.

      • Observer

        Yes, but the the authority of current nuclear regulatory agencies is based on the use and disposal of radioactive materials, fission reactors, and (in theory) fusion reactors. If Rossi’s E-Cat starts with non-radioactive materials, ends with non-radioactive materials, does not emit radiation, and is based on an isotope shift, then the current nuclear regulatory agencies have no jurisdiction over it.

        “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials, such as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspection and enforcement of its requirements.”

        • Agree – it’s the same in Sweden (see Chapter 13 in my book An Impossible Invention). But I didn’t refer to regulation. My point is that you cannot pretend it’s not nuclear to make it seem more pretty. Maybe it’s wise to find a non-nuclear name on it, given the bad associations the word ‘nuclear’ gives to people, but I think it’s unwise not to be clear about its real basis. Maybe the impression of the word nuclear could change over time. It’s not nuclear that’s bad. It’s radiation.

  • Low Energy “Nickel” Reaction, what a great idea. Nuclear is such a bad PR word.

    • Yes, not bad. However, if it’s nuclear, which everything indicates it is, this will not be possible to ignore.

      • “Nickel Reactor” might make for a good sales pitch.

      • clovis ray

        Hi, Mats.
        what besides a tiny amounts of radiation emitted, at the beginning, of the effect. Do you see that is nuclear, a small amount of transmutation explains that, what else do you see, that might be nuclear, btw i hate nuclear power plants, they need to be ban from our earth, totally, it’s a bad thing and must go. a good example, is tokyo, if we only knew how big a mess that is, it could kill everything in the pacific ocean ,

        • This is the very core of all LENR/cold fusion observations – the amount of energy released is way to much in relation to the matter being used as fuel, for being chemical reactions. Therefore it has to be a nuclear reaction (nuclear reactions release about a million times more energy than chemical from the same amount of matter/fuel)*, but the good thing, which is also what has not yet been explained in an generally accepted way, is that LENR reactions are [almost] radiation free. Exactly what kind of nuclear reaction they are, or how they occur, has not yet been explained either. But they must be nuclear.
          Good thing: High energy density, a million times more than oil etc
          Good thing: Radiation free [‘miracle’]
          Good thing: No radioactive fuel
          Good thing: No radioactive waste
          Good thing: Relatively low temperatures [‘miracle’, if it were to be fusion]
          *(chemical reactions involve electrons, nuclear reactions involve the nucleus)

          • clovis ray

            Mats,

            I agree with your synopsis of the Rossi effect , And I like this part,

            , but the good thing, which is also what has not yet been explained in an generally accepted way, is that LENR reactions are [almost] radiation free. along with all the other good things you mentioned.

      • Observer

        Yes, but the the authority of current nuclear regulatory agencies is based on the use and disposal of radioactive materials, fission reactors, and (in theory) fusion reactors. If Rossi’s E-Cat starts with non-radioactive materials, ends with non-radioactive materials, does not emit radiation, and is based on an isotope shift, then the current nuclear regulatory agencies have no jurisdiction over it.

        “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials, such as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspection and enforcement of its requirements.”

        • Agree – it’s the same in Sweden (see Chapter 13 in my book An Impossible Invention). But I didn’t refer to regulation. My point is that you cannot pretend it’s not nuclear to make it seem more pretty. Maybe it’s wise to find a non-nuclear name on it, given the bad associations the word ‘nuclear’ gives to people, but I think it’s unwise not to be clear about its real basis. Maybe the impression of the word nuclear could change over time. It’s not nuclear that’s bad. It’s radiation.

  • Windmills do not replace oil because we do not generate electricity with oil. Windmills slightly reduce our use of relatively clean natural gas, so little as to be inconsequential in any quest to reduce CO2 output. Windmills are never cost effective because they always require fossil fuel back-up and duplication of systems costs money. In Texas they have a staggering amount of windmills, but the number of them that are in service at any time is a very small percentage. People quote windmill cost numbers based on optimum output as if they can output that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The intermittency factor and the unreliability factor increases the costs tremendously, so much so that they are effectively useless and just window dressing. States that force windmills have much higher electricity costs than states that do not. The USA is bankrupt and cannot afford energy systems that don’t work. Solar is even more costly, and you can never get solar energy at night. The whole renewable energy fad is silly if you really face facts. The people who brought us biofuels and killed millions of people worldwide due to malnutrition have never apologized, except for a weak admission by Al Gore that it was all a mistake. Millions dead and the renewable energy people do not give a damn, and the news media that pushed biofuels on us won’t even talk about it. 60 Minutes in particularly guilty in that regard. Lee Harvey Oswald only killed one man and what do we think of him?

  • Wind and solar have been around for many decades. The basics are not going to change. They are inherently unreliable and cannot survive in the marketplace to any significant extent without subsidies and mandates.

    http://www.energytribune.com/10908/wind-energy-the-wheels-are-coming-off-the-gravy-train#sthash.mZmssVmw.dpbs

    The energy solution has to be some form of nuclear energy because it is the only energy reservoir that has a higher energy density than fossil fuels. You cannot replace a banquet with a potato chip. We have three possible solutions. The best solution is LENR if we can make it reliable. A close second is simplified hot fusion such as the Lockheed Martin device. The third solution is lower cost, inherently safer nuclear fission reactors such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor being developed in China. Government should spend reasonable amounts of money of research in these areas, but never spend a dime on subsidies and mandates. The marketplace is the true test of value. Products that really work do not need a Mafia style government to put a gun to people’s heads and tell them you must buy my product.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/007jlljc.asp?pg=1

  • Mats002

    If LENR is a non-existant phenomenon and E-Cat do not produce energy, this would be the scandal of the century.

    Serious well reputed business men in China and big capital establishment in UK and official science in several countries (Japan, India, China, Russia, …) and many high profile organisations in US and Europe. All decieved by one man boiling water in a garage?

    Some of my tax money goes to Swedish Radio, which officially have declared the above scenario as a fact. To the heads of Swedish Radio: think again.

  • Mats002

    If LENR is a non-existant phenomenon and E-Cat do not produce energy, this would be the scandal of the century.

    Serious well reputed business men in China and big capital establishment in UK and official science in several countries (Japan, India, China, Russia, …) and many high profile organisations in US and Europe. All decieved by one man boiling water in a garage?

    Some of my tax money goes to Swedish Radio, which officially have declared the above scenario as a fact. To the heads of Swedish Radio: think again.

    • LookMoo

      Many of the parties in Sweden have based their business models on energy conversation, most notably “The Green”. As about 80% of the journalists in Sweden claim they are Green or communist sympathizers,.. it just natural for them to overlook this technology as long as possible.

      Just as when the communist Berlin wall fall these journalist will be in denial until they get it in their heads.

    • adriano

      Well, this is exactly what happened with Petroldragon: Rossi were able to deceive important institution such as Regione Lombardia (the richest region in Italy) and several businessman in northern Italy. Honestly, I think you should think again because this is a very possible scenario

  • HS61AF91

    Well I made a calmed-down with ‘permeate’ vice ‘explode’ version of my comment and S&S printed both! The polite version is:

    “The Administration is correct, to halt the Keystone Pipeline.
    Coincidentally this assists with the coming out of new technology; near
    free energy reactors, which are about to permeate the market. For
    example the company Industrial Heat’s slide show provides an
    appreciation of what’s about to occur: click: “Industrial Heat Slideshow
    Posted” article on E-Cat World. The slides refer to LENR (Low Energy
    Nickel Reaction). Be that as it may, it is a benefit to our land to not
    have shale oil transported from the northern border with Canada, to the
    southern states, hoping no leaks or mishaps ever take place.”

    I guess it depends on a person’s disposition as to which version may be more absorbed.

  • Wartjpg

    The answer to the first point is “none”. When wells are abandoned, they are plugged by pumping concrete down the well bore. This is required by law.

    As to “capturing” landfill methane, the gulf between “can be” and “are” is huge.

    Sure I can:

    CH4 + O2 –> CO2 + H2O (natural gas)

    C6H6 + O2 —> 6CO2 + H2O

    (substituting benzene for the “polynuclear chickenwire” that is coal.)

    It really “is” as simple as that.

    And of course, the use of natural gas in NEW generating plants makes use of combined-cycle gas turbine/steam turbine units of far greater efficiency than the coal-fired steam units.

  • We produce food with oil and natural gas. Without those two fossil fuels we would die. If you tried to use wind and solar to produce food it would be so expensive and scarce that only multi-millionaires could afford to eat. Food has to be affordable to be usable. The renewable energy cult is THE cult of mass starvation and food price hyperinflation. Oil and natural gas work; they are efficient, and right now we cannot live without them. Fossil fuels are keeping us all alive, and vilifying them and condemning companies that produce them is incredibly childish and ungrateful. Even if we can get LENR to work we will still need oil to produce chemicals, asphalt, plastics, synthetic rubber, drugs, paints, ink, etc. Renewable energy people are like parrots that just repeat mindless political slogans over and over. They never think things through and they never face the real facts.

    • fact police

      We produce food with oil and natural gas. Without those two fossil fuels we would die. If you tried to use wind and solar to produce food it would be so expensive and scarce that only multi-millionaires could afford to eat.

      Setting aside the question of the accuracy of this exaggerated claim, it is not relevant to the question of whether wind and solar are a good idea for generating electricity.

      Fossil fuels are used to produce electricity. Wind and solar can produce electricity in a more environmentally benign way, and in an indefinitely sustainable way, so there is good reason to pursue it. Economically, it is already competitive in some contexts, and trends indicate it could become competitive in more contexts. Why would anyone defend fossil fuels for this purpose, when better solutions exist?

      It is a contrived and fallacious argument to suggest that supporting the production of electricity by solar or wind means you can’t put diesel fuel in your tractor or combine.

      Fossil fuels are keeping us all alive, and vilifying them and condemning companies that produce them is incredibly childish and ungrateful.

      There is no vilification involved. Indeed, the energy from fossil fuels saves far more lives than it takes, by improving living standards and so on, but this is not a sustainable scenario. We are stealing from the future to improve the present. And when you have two alternatives to produce electricity, and one is cleaner and more sustainable than the other, it is irresponsible to choose the dirty one for fear of offending its producers.

      Even if we can get LENR to work we will still need oil to produce chemicals, asphalt, plastics, synthetic rubber, drugs, paints, ink, etc. Renewable energy people are like parrots that just repeat mindless political slogans over and over. They never think things through and they never face the real facts.

      Wow. First you make the most mindless argument against solar and wind, and then you argue that its supporters make mindless arguments.

      For heaven’s sake, if fossil fuels have other important uses, that only strengthens the argument for generating electricity by alternative means, so as not to waste those resources where they are *not* needed. You should think things through and try to face facts.

    • Warthog

      Actually, with LENR energy, it becomes possible to synthesize hydrocarbons from waste. Any large city’s garbage contains megatons of carbon, which can be gasified, and the syngas converted to pretty much any carbon-chained species we like. Who knows…someday, all those pipelines that now take natural gas from Louisiana and Texas may flow in the opposite direction, sending syngas to refineries.

      • Making synthetic liquid fuels out of waste carbon, not “crop waste” which needs to be plowed under to save our topsoil, is a good idea. The best use of LENR would be to put LENR reactors directly into cars and have no liquid fuel at all. We do not yet know if that is possible, but we can hope. LENR, simplified hot fusion, and next generation fission can all make liquid fuels, hopefully at about the same price we now pay for gasoline. No one knows exactly which system will win in the marketplace. The world marketplace creates a giant brain made up of billions of individual consumers brains, each brain voting for which product is best when we make a purchase. A purchase is a vote, thus the free market is democratic, not dictatorial like mandates and subsidies. That giant brain is, on average, far smarter than any politician.

        • just a detail on crowd voting.
          It have been found that the intelligence of the crowd is reduced when some voice dominate, like when people discuss before voting.
          It seems that any kind of “coordination”, like fashion, authorities, religious practice, which say what people have to do or judge, ^prevent good crowdthinking.

          however available data are important, but any kind of pressure, even if welcomed (people prefer to surrender their responsibility to a foreign authority) will make people sheep.

          • A purchase is a different kind of vote because it costs people hard earned money. People use more of their available brain capacity to make purchase decisions. They want the best possible product at the lowest possible price.

  • Donald Chandler

    Watch for surprisingly strong new commitments to reducing emissions from US and China at Paris climate talks. Obviously, they know!

  • Roger Barker

    I am a bit disappointed we didn’t see this slideshow last year. That would’ve been big news. We
    will have to make sure our articles stay more recent, won’t we?! At least this article gets to the
    gut of the problem which will be solved by LENR. It is clear how LENR stacks up against all
    them other energy sources. So much superior to the others put together. 1.5c is the start. For
    all we know this price will come down FAST. As the technology is optimized by all, like for
    like there will be NOTHING remotely close to what LENR offers. NOTHING! It will be like feeding
    pigs at the trough! Total free for all! Exciting times, that’s for sure 🙂

    • “We will have to make sure our articles stay more recent, won’t we?”
      Didn’t this just come out on October 18th?

      • Frank Acland

        The photo of Darden in China was from October 18, this year, but it turns out the slideshow was from 2013 — but just newly discovered.

  • “We will have to make sure our articles stay more recent, won’t we?”
    Didn’t this just come out on October 18th?

    • ecatworld

      The photo of Darden in China was from October 18, this year, but it turns out the slideshow was from 2013 — but just newly discovered.

  • Alain Samoun

    CleanTechnica just reported on “the world’s cheapest solar” landing in Austin, Texas, with bids under 4 cents/kWh (and the assumed unsubsidized price of solar thus being below 5.71 cents/kWh)Jul 11, 2015

    http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/10/price-solar-hits-record-low/

  • Alain Samoun

    CleanTechnica just reported on “the world’s cheapest solar” landing in Austin, Texas, with bids under 4 cents/kWh (and the assumed unsubsidized price of solar thus being below 5.71 cents/kWh)Jul 11, 2015

    http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/10/price-solar-hits-record-low/

  • Bob Greenyer

    Translated slide…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Translated slide…

  • Observer

    If Rossi’s waste to fuel technology was a scam, than why is it still being used today?

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/25/edmonton-to-launch-waste-to-biofuel-plant-based-on-old-rossi-technology/

    • Mats002

      +1

    • bachcole

      +3

  • He was never shown to deceive anyone and he was never convicted for fraud. The cities in Italy probably never wanted him to handle waste. It meant competition.