Hydro Fusion Reports $121 Million Chinese Investment into LENR

Thanks to AlainCo for uncovering an interesting piece of information on the Hydro Fusion website regarding Chinese investment in LENR/Industrial Heat. On the Hydro Fusion website in the Fourth Quarter Deveopments of 2015 (http://hydrofusion.com/news/e-cat-fourth-quarter-developments-of-2015) page is found this statement:

New Investments

Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial Heat, signed a cooperation agreement with a newly created strategic financial center in Beijing. The “Technology Ministry of Science and Innovation Park” will participate in technology transfer with 20 companies from the U.S. This sparked rumors that the E-Cat technology recently patented in the U.S. would somehow become the sole property of the Chinese government. However, these ideas were assuaged, and China invested the equivalent of $121 million USD in LENR technology.

Alain asked Andrea Rossi if he knew about this on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today, and Rossi responded, “yes, I saw it, it has been reproduced from other publications”. Alain asked if AR was involved in this deal, and he responded, “no, it is an action IH made in his Territory, for which has been licensed from Leonardo Corporation”

It’s still a bit vague as to what exactly is being financed, but Industrial Heat does have an E-Cat license for China. Perhaps they are going to be manufacturing E-Cats in China in this Science and Innovation Park that has been established, or since IH is supporting other LENR groups, funds could be used for supporting non-E-Cat LENR technologies.

Still, it this number of accurate, it shows a significant commitment from the Chinese to support the development of LENR.

  • Buck

    Wow ! ! !

  • Buck

    Wow ! ! !

  • Guest

    This is not accurate information. IH literally just sent a letter saying don’t believe anything not confirmed by us

    • Frost*

      What information do you have that makes it inaccurate? Please share your source.

      • Guest

        First, you have IH explicitly saying that comments not made/validated by us are not to be relied on.

        Second, now that Woodford (a publicly traded fund) is invested, a follow-on investment of this size (which would 100% entail a re-valuation) would have triggered a mark-to-market change to Woodford’s investment. The fact that this signing ceremony occurred in Oct 2015, and there has been no public re-valuation of Woodford’s position indicates that either a 120M+ investment in IH did not occur, or that Woodford has willfully violated public securities law (which it would not do).

        Now it’s possible that the Chinese have put 120M into developing the technology park, but reporting that as an investment in IH/LENR is not accurate.

        • Guest

          One of the biggest benefits of Woodford’s investment for folks following the IH story is that public securities laws will result in you becoming aware of any significant follow-on investments or material changes in valuation.

        • Guest

          Also, keep in mind that Tom Darden has many interests outside of IH. We all know him only in the context of LENR, but he clearly has been doing (and continues to do) other things before he became involved in the LENR space a few years ago.

          They could be investing in a million other possible projects he’s involved in. That said, I’m sure he’s talking to them about IH, but if they had invested in IH it would have shown up via Woodford as explained above.

          • Frost*

            You can ask Neil Woodford about this yourself on 14th March https://woodfordfunds.com/ live q&A session.

          • Guest

            don’t need to. but go for it if you want.

          • sam

            Would you invest in Wood Ford
            Funds.How can a person invest
            in them?
            If ECat is successful
            how big of an impact would it
            have on there fund.
            Thanks for your knowledge.

          • LarryJ

            Woodford Patient Capital Trust (Yahoo Symbol WPCT.L) trades on the London Stock Exchange. In addition to commissions a stamp tax of 0.5% is applied against all purchases. Current price 0.86P GBP or 1.22 USD per share. Guest has estimated Woodford’s share of IH at 5% but that is split between their two funds so that would be 2.5% of IH is held by the publicly traded fund. That 2.5% of IH currently makes up 2.19% of the funds total value. The fund value is 733.11 million GBP.

            Any broker that deals on international exchanges can handle this trade.

          • Omega Z

            On HydroFusion, listed as New Investments.
            http://hydrofusion.com/news/e-cat-fourth-quarter-developments-of-2015

            “China invested the equivalent of $121 million USD in LENR technology.”
            Not invested in Industrial Heat.– A joint Venture it’s a Consortium like Airbus.

        • “and China invested the equivalent of $121 million USD in LENR technology.”

          HF did not claim China invested 120M in IH so your refutation is misguided

          • Guest

            That is a very fair point, though they did write in such a way that it was heavily implied…

            It should also be noted, however, that the link HF provides as source material for the entire comment actually has no mention at all of a $120M investment. There appears to be no source at all for that comment, other than it was pulled out of thin air.

            Furthermore, there is no mention of LENR at all in the original source material about the creation of the technology park. It is an assumption that because Tom Darden was involved, it had to do with LENR. I would just caution that Tom Darden has a lot of other interests, and if you look at things with a critical eye there really isn’t a whole lot here.

          • Omega Z

            “I would just caution that Tom Darden has a lot of other interests,” In China as said by Darden.

            However, the Technology park is very much about LENR. When this info first came to light, there were charts as to size, output, unit cost, production rates etc, based on the original 1MW container.

            Note I think much of this should be taken in context of a Consortium.
            Some things that don’t quite make sense otherwise becomes pretty clear.

        • Ged

          I would like to ask how you would know if or if not a re-valuation had occurred? Such matters should be happening fairly often across Woodford’s portfolio if they have to occur whenever anyone changes their investments in a company Woodford is also invested in, but I don’t see on their site where that is tracked, at least without registering. Also, what is the reporting time frame? Is it quarterly?

          • Guest

            Bear with me, long explanation coming…

            When I say a re-valuation, I am referring to an accounting concept, not what you or I would think of in terms of fluctuations in value (i.e., if a positive test came in you and I would think the value would naturally go up, but from an accounting perspective a re-valuation occurs only when there is a material sale or investment of capital).

            For public companies these changes in valuation are constant, and are reflected in the publicly traded price of stock (as determined by what people are willing to pay).

            For companies that are private, these valuation events occur only when there is a new fundraising round or when a material sale is made. So the value of IH to a shareholder would only officially change when a new investment or a public sale is made.

            For public companies that own stakes in private companies (situation we’re talking about with Woodford re: IH), if there has been a significant valuation event regarding that private company they would be required to recognize that (so investors know what they’re trading).

            It would typically show up in a quarterly statement, in the form of % of fund value in IH. They would indicate total value of the fund, and then what % is in IH, which you can use to determine the value of the IH investment. We know the initial amount they contributed, so if the current value has changed dramatically (not explainable by currency exchange rate changes), then there has either been a valuation event, or Woodford has injected more capital. There is no evidence of a significant change in value of their position as reported in their January statement, which should absolutely be enough time for them to recognize any change related to an October event.

          • Ged

            Thank you for the helpful explanation. I had figured you meant as much. If you have access to the percentages, can you post them here?

            So then, if I’ve got you right, if Woodford injected equal magnitude capital in an investment at the same time as someone else, the percentage wouldn’t change, based on your description? That is, the percent they state is their percent stake in an investment, not the percentage of the Woodford funds that are invested? So any percentage change they list, is a composite of these two opposing factors?

            Is there any other useful metric, or is this all we’ve got?

          • Guest

            Sure, so as has been discussed in a few other threads, the initial total investment by Woodford was ~$50M split across 2 separate funds (which occurred around May 2015).

            Per Woodford website (https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/wpct/fullportfolio/), here were the valuations calculated as of Feb 29, 2016:

            Woodford Patient Capital Trust
            Total Fund Value: 733.1M GBP
            IH as % of Fund: 2.19%
            IH implied Value (GBP): 16.1M
            IH implied Value (converted to USD at 2/29 exchange rate): $22.3M

            Woodford Equity Income Fund
            Total Fund Value: 8.28B GBP
            IH as % of Fund: 0.24%
            IH implied Value (GBP): 19.9M
            IH implied Value (converted to USD at 2/29 exchange rate): $27.7M

            So the same $50M combined valuation as what was invested last May.

            The percent they state is the % of the Woodford Fund value that is invested (not the % of the company that they own). So, if the value of all of their non-IH investments went down, but IH value stayed constant, that percent would increase, and vice versa. The combination of total fund value and % of that value in IH will tell you the valuation of their IH stake.

          • Frank Acland

            I assume that Woodford would have bought a certain number of shares in IH as part of their stake. Do we know how many total shares are available, and what percentage of IH is owned by the Woodford Funds? Or to calculate a valuation of IH as a whole?

          • Guest

            Yeah, that’s publicly available (if you know how to interpret investment documents)… some of your other threads point to documents that contain the information.

            Looks like based on the price per share paid by Woodford and the total outstanding shares there was a $1B pre-money valuation for IH. Before anyone misinterprets that, it does not mean there is $1B invested in IH, just that in order to purchase shares Woodford had to pay as if the company was worth $1B. As a result, Woodford’s $50M investment would have bought them just shy of 5% of IH.

          • Ged

            Hm.. Why would changes in IH’s assets affect the percent of Woodford’s money, Woodford’s assets, invested in IH? Is it a similar idea to if I invested 10% of my money in a stock, and then say that the stock changing value changes the percentage of my money invested in it, so that the stock’s value can be determined by the percent of my money in it, as long as I didn’t actually change the percent of my money invested? I can see how a small change could be tracked, such that if the stock doubled in value, so my “total assets”, as in if I sold all my stock and totalled all my money up again, would now be 10% higher than before. So, the percentage of what I have invested in the stock would suddenly be… 18%, rather than 10% because the stock doubled in valuation which increased my investment in the stock relative to my now increased total assets due to the stock. Thus, if IH doubled in valuation, and Woodford had 2.43% of its money invested, it would turn into 4.6% of its money invested?

            This assumes 1) Woodford doesn’t change its asset allocation if it makes money in IH, 2) that a doubling in IH’s value also doubles Woodford’s investment, but from what I understand, usually that’s just a percentage of the increase that investors get back?, 3) that a signing for investment moves into an actual monetary investment and value increase in IH that would ripple fast enough though Q4 to be caught in the next quarter (I don’t know how fast money is transferred and reported in financial statements in this sort of situation, but seems plausible).

            Without the investment report from the quarter before to compare against, I guess we can’t make a calculation (I don’t want to register with their site, as I am not an investor in them). We’d also have to look at the allocation across all assets and their total funds to do proper calculations. Then a best guess of returns percentages for such a type of investment as placed in IH, and the time scale these occur on.

            I dunno, it doesn’t seem we have enough data to say anything about this yet. But maybe you have more insights? You seem quite knowledgeable about these particular matters involving Woodford. Can we make a direct calculation of IH value changes between Q3 and Q4 of last year, and Q1 of this year?

          • LarryJ

            The value of IH in Woodfords listed Patient Capital Trust portfolio is reported monthly. As at Feb 29, 2016 the fund was valued at 733.1 million GBP and IH contributes 2.19% of that value. I think that is pretty much unchanged since the original investment. If I recall correctly last months contribution was 2.17%

            This link may require registering your email address

            https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/wpct/fullportfolio/

          • Ged

            It does require registering, but I’m not an investor with them, so I am weary of it. Considering all this is percentage based across a large number of unknowns, without seeing all the accounting details of all pieces, it’s hard to do any calculations of actual quantitative change. I haven’t seen anyone do actual value calculations, for instance, despite that it can be done, as it seems there is just a few pieces of important info missing.

            It would be very interesting though if a reliable algorithm could be developed so we could watch IH. Maybe it could be calibrated against known company value changes compared to Woodford percentages.

    • Matt Sevrens

      That wasn’t about investment, that was about the performance of their portfolio.

    • Ged

      They were talking about LENR test results in that letter. This is a matter of business records.

    • bachcole

      Guest, you insight would have been better received if you had given us a “real” handle.

      • Guest

        I understand, sorry

        • Omega Z

          Hydro Fusion is a licensee of Leonardo just as Industrial Heat.

          I would accept that the Primary story here is for the most part right. The details tho are murky. I believe this $121 million USD investment is towards the new Technology Park whose primary purpose according to data viewed earlier is LENR Technology.

          That would be all technology associated with LENR/E-cats including adaptive technology to make it usable as LENR is not drop in replacement ready. So Funds not spent on LENR will be indirectly LENR related.

          • Warthog

            Almost certainly not. The dollar figure is way too small. See my comments above.

          • Omega Z

            You’re thinking in terms of entirety. I’m thinking in terms of just a start.
            Considering a manufacture-able product is not even ready yet, A $121 million is a good start.

    • roseland67

      Guest,
      Logic and reason have no place in this discussion. Please allow rampant speculation to rule the day,
      It will be much better for all concerned, if you just sit down, be quiet, and believe what you are told is true, no matter who says it, or who interprets it.
      I agree with you 100%

      • Guest

        Haha, I think you’re probably right. Time for me to be quiet again and just observe the spectacle…

        Honestly just worried that the speculation, exaggeration, and misinformation could potentially get far enough ahead of reality that this field experiences a 2nd F&P type blowback that sets it back another 30 years despite really encouraging progress.

        One last comment before I zip it. For those who think that HF knows anything about what Darden and/or IH is doing, just because they’re both Rossi licensses, clearly didn’t read or comprehend IH’s letter…

        • roseland67

          the speculation, exaggeration, and misinformation has been going on for over 5 years,
          And It hasn’t stopped yet.
          When replication has been completed by multiple sources then I will get excited and maybe do a little speculating.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    The race has begun. Expect to hear more and more big investments from now on.

    • Ged

      Yeah, wow. That is no small sum of money. Given what we’ve heard from other investments for IH, that could give China a majority interest. Other forces will not let that stand. A good time for IH, as long as they can deliver some good test results soon to solidify their ROI outlook *hint hint*.

      • georgehants

        Wonderful day

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    The race has begun. Expect to hear more and more big investments from now on.

    • Ged

      Yeah, wow. That is no small sum of money. Given what we’ve heard from other investments for IH, that could give China a majority interest. Other forces will not let that stand. A good time for IH, as long as they can deliver some good test results soon to solidify their ROI outlook *hint hint*.

      Edit: an interesting wrinkle with this report is it’s unclear to me if any of the other companies of the 20 are also involved in LENR and may have gotten a chunk of this money, or if it was all for IH (sounds like the latter). But even divided by 20, this is a hefty investment–the sort of money the LENR community has been longing for to truly rocket forward research and development.

  • Frost*

    What information do you have that have that makes it inaccurate? Please share your source.

    • Guest

      First, you have IH explicitly saying that comments not made/validated by us are not to be relied on.

      Second, now that Woodford (a publicly traded fund) is invested, a follow-on investment of this size (which would 100% entail a re-valuation) would have triggered a mark-to-market change to Woodford’s investment. The fact that this signing ceremony occurred in Oct 2015, and there has been no public re-valuation of Woodford’s position indicates that either a 120M+ investment in IH did not occur, or that Woodford has willfully violated public securities law (which it would not do).

      Now it’s possible that the Chinese have put 120M into developing the technology park, but reporting that as an investment in IH/LENR is not accurate.

      • Guest

        One of the biggest benefits of Woodford’s investment for folks following the IH story is that public securities laws will result in you becoming aware of any significant follow-on investments or material changes in valuation.

      • Guest

        Also, keep in mind that Tom Darden has many interests outside of IH. We all know him only in the context of LENR, but he clearly has been doing (and continues to do) other things before he became involved in the LENR space a few years ago.

        They could be investing in a million other possible projects he’s involved in. That said, I’m sure he’s talking to them about IH, but if they had invested in IH it would have shown up via Woodford as explained above.

        • Frost*

          You can ask Neil Woodford about this yourself on 14th March https://woodfordfunds.com/ live q&A session.

          • Guest

            don’t need to. but go for it if you want.

          • sam

            Would you invest in Wood Ford
            Funds.How can a person invest
            in them?
            If ECat is successful
            how big of an impact would it
            have on there fund.
            Thanks for your knowledge.

          • LarryJ

            Woodford Patient Capital Trust (Yahoo Symbol WPCT.L) trades on the London Stock Exchange. In addition to commissions a stamp tax of 0.5% is applied against all purchases. Current price 0.86P GBP or 1.22 USD per share. Guest has estimated Woodford’s share of IH at 5% but that is split between their two funds so that would be 2.5% of IH is held by the publicly traded fund. That 2.5% of IH currently makes up 2.19% of the funds total value. The fund value is 733.11 million GBP.

          • Ged

            Thank you for the helpful explanation. I had figured you meant as much. If you have access to the percentages, can you post them here?

            So then, if I’ve got you right, if Woodford injected equal magnitude capital in an investment at the same time as someone else, the percentage wouldn’t change, based on your description? That is, the percent they state is their percent stake in an investment, not the percentage of the Woodford funds that are invested? So any percentage change they list, is a composite of these two opposing factors?

          • Guest

            Sure, so as has been discussed in a few other threads, the initial total investment by Woodford was ~$50M split across 2 separate funds (which occurred around May 2015).

            Per Woodford website (https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/wpct/fullportfolio/), here were the valuations calculated as of Feb 29, 2016:

            Woodford Patient Capital Trust
            Total Fund Value: 733.1M GBP
            IH as % of Fund: 2.19%
            IH implied Value (converted to USD at 2/29 exchange rate): $22.3M

            Woodford Equity Income Fund
            Total Fund Value: 8.28B GBP
            IH as % of Fund: 0.24%
            IH implied Value (converted to USD at 2/29 exchange rate): $27.7M

            The percent they state is the % of the Woodford Fund value that is invested (not the % of the company that they own). So, if the value of all of their non-IH investments went down, but IH value stayed constant, that percent would increase, and vice versa. The combination of total fund value and % of that value in IH will tell you the valuation of their IH stake.

          • Frank Acland

            I assume that Woodford would have bought a certain number of shares in IH as part of their stake. Do we know how many total shares are available, and what percentage of IH is owned by the Woodford Funds? Or to calculate a valuation of IH as a whole?

          • Ged

            Hm.. Why would changes in IH’s assets affect the percent of Woodford’s money, Woodford’s assets, invested in IH? Is it a similar idea to if I invested 10% of my money in a stock, and then say that the stock changing value changes the percentage of my money invested in it, so that the stock’s value can be determined by the percent of my money in it, as long as I didn’t actually change the percent of my money invested? I can see how a small change could be tracked, such that if the stock doubled in value, so my “total assets”, as in if I sold all my stock and totalled all my money up again, would now be 10% higher than before. So, the percentage of what I have invested in the stock would suddenly be… 18%, rather than 10% because the stock doubled in valuation which increased my investment in the stock relative to my now increased total assets due to the stock. Thus, if IH doubled in valuation, and Woodford had 2.43% of its money invested, it would turn into 4.6% of its money invested?

            This assumes 1) Woodford doesn’t change its asset allocation if it makes money in IH, 2) that a doubling in IH’s value also doubles Woodford’s investment, but from what I understand, usually that’s just a percentage of the increase that investors get back?, 3) that a signing for investment moves into an actual monetary investment and value increase in IH that would ripple fast enough though Q4 to be caught in the next quarter (I don’t know how fast money is transferred and reported in financial statements in this sort of situation, but seems plausible).

            Without the investment report from the quarter before to compare against, I guess we can’t make a calculation (I don’t want to register with their site, as I am not an investor in them). We’d also have to look at the allocation across all assets and their total funds to do proper calculations. Then a best guess of returns percentages for such a type of investment as placed in IH, and the time scale these occur on.

            I dunno, it doesn’t seem we have enough data to say anything about this yet. But maybe you have more insights? You seem quite knowledgeable about these particular matters involving Woodford. Can we make a direct calculation of IH value changes between Q3 and Q4 of last year, and Q1 of this year?

          • Rene

            Looking forward to seeing LENR heater/generator on Banggood.com

        • Omega Z

          On HydroFusion, listed as New Investments.
          http://hydrofusion.com/news/e-cat-fourth-quarter-developments-of-2015

          “China invested the equivalent of $121 million USD in LENR technology.”
          Not invested in Industrial Heat.– A joint Venture it’s a Consortium like Airbus.

      • Ged

        I would like to ask how you would know if or if not a re-valuation had occurred? Such matters should be happening fairly often across Woodford’s portfolio if they have to occur whenever anyone changes their investments in a company Woodford is also invested in, but I don’t see on their site where that is tracked, at least without registering. Also, what is the reporting time frame? Is it quarterly?

        • LarryJ

          The value of IH in Woodfords listed Patient Capital Trust portfolio is reported monthly. As at Feb 29, 2016 the fund was valued at 733.1 GBP and IH contributes 2.19% of that value. I think that is pretty much unchanged since the original investment. If I recall correctly last months contribution was 2.17%

          This link may require registering your email address

          https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/wpct/fullportfolio/

          • Ged

            It does require registering, but I’m not an investor with them, so I am weary of it. Considering all this is percentage based across a large number of unknowns, without seeing all the accounting details of all pieces, it’s hard to do any calculations of actual quantitative change. I haven’t seen anyone do actual value calculations, for instance, despite that it can be done, as it seems there is just a few pieces of important info missing.

            It would be very interesting though if a reliable algorithm could be developed so we could watch IH. Maybe it could be calibrated against known company value changes compared to Woodford percentages.

  • Matt Sevrens

    That wasn’t about investment, that was about the performance of their portfolio.

  • Ged

    They were talking about LENR test results in that letter. This is a matter of business records.

  • bachcole

    Guest, you insight would have been better received if you had given us a “real” handle.

  • MLWerner

    Of course a significant portion of that $121M could be going towards creation of the “Technology Ministry of Science and Innovation Park” which will be working on LENR.

  • MLWerner

    Of course a significant portion of that $121M could be going towards creation of the “Technology Ministry of Science and Innovation Park” which will be working on LENR.

  • pg

    I think this is one of the things that the IH statement was referring to.

  • pg

    I think this is one of the things that the IH statement was referring to.

  • Tom59

    Not long ago we have been discussing here about whether LENR is real and about MaryYugo (is she still around?). Isn’t it just breathtaking to see this now? AR had mentioned that the 1yr test plant was accessible to selected visitors. Seems that has happened, conclusions were drawn and everything is being prepared now prior to going public with the results. Obviously the involvement of Darden came at the right moment in the overall development. Feels so good!!

    • roseland67

      Tom59,
      Do you feel the same now that IH and LC are in court battling over nonpayment and non working Ecat tests?
      Mary Yugo may be right after all

      • Tom59

        Mary Yugo is more on the destructive end – does not contribute to anything useful. The effect of LENR is there, waiting to be explored and exploited. Assuming that large scale production is around the corner may be overly optimistic by Rossi, but without that optimism you cannot start such a journey. If Rossi’s efforts contribute to or result in validation of LENR, that would be huge already. More than that is fantastic.

  • Tom59

    Not long ago we have been discussing here about whether LENR is real and about MaryYugo (is she still around?). Isn’t it just breathtaking to see this now? AR had mentioned that the 1yr test plant was accessible to selected visitors. Seems that has happened, conclusions were drawn and everything is being prepared now prior to going public with the results. Obviously the involvement of Darden came at the right moment in the overall development. Feels so good!!

    • LookMoo
    • roseland67

      Tom59,
      Do you feel the same now that IH and LC are in court battling over nonpayment and non working Ecat tests?
      Mary Yugo may be right after all

      • Tom59

        Mary Yugo is more on the destructive end – does not contribute to anything useful. The effect of LENR is there, waiting to be explored and exploited. Assuming that large scale production is around the corner may be overly optimistic by Rossi, but without that optimism you cannot start such a journey. If Rossi’s efforts contribute to or result in validation of LENR, that would be huge already. More than that is fantastic.

        • bachcole

          Well put.

  • Guest

    That is a very fair point, though they did write in such a way that it was heavily implied…

    It should also be noted, however, that the link HF provides as source material for the entire comment actually has no mention at all of a $120M investment. There appears to be no source at all for that comment, other than it was pulled out of thin air.

    Furthermore, there is no mention of LENR at all in the original source material about the creation of the technology park. It is an assumption that because Tom Darden was involved, it had to do with LENR. I would just caution that Tom Darden has a lot of other interests, and if you look at things with a critical eye there really isn’t a whole lot here.

    • Omega Z

      “I would just caution that Tom Darden has a lot of other interests,” In China as said by Darden.

      However, the Technology park is very much about LENR. When this info first came to light, there were charts as to size, output, unit cost, production rates etc, based on the original 1MW container.

      Note I think much of this should be taken in context of a Consortium.
      Some things that don’t quite make sense otherwise becomes pretty clear.

  • TommySWE

    Maybe the Chinese bought a 100 one Mega Watt power plants (100 * 1.5 Million $) with a discount (1,21 Million $ each).

  • jimbo92107

    Imagine all the coal-fired power plants in China being replaced by LENR reactors and a few pounds of fuel…

  • greggoble

    This is a MIT Technology Review

    “Protests Rise as China Lays Off Millions of Coal Workers”
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600927/protests-rise-as-china-lays-off-millions-of-coal-workers/

    Quote

    China is finally making progress in curing its coal addiction, but the withdrawal symptoms are starting to hit some of its most vulnerable citizens. The government said on Monday that 1.8 million workers in the coal and steel industries will be laid off this year, representing more than 10 percent of the total steel workforce and fully one-fifth of the workers in the coal industry, according to economic research firm IHS Insights. The central government says it will invest more than $15 billion in retraining and job placement for laid-off workers.

    (by the way that is $8,333.33 per person. According to CNN’s online global wage calculator, which uses data from the International Labor Organization, the average annual salary of a worker in China’s private sector was 28,752 yuan (about $4,755)). -end quote

    That leaves over $6 billion to build new factories…

    Will China put these folks to work in a MEGA LENR reactor factory?

    Of course they will, in a heart beat.

  • greggoble

    This is a MIT Technology Review

    “Protests Rise as China Lays Off Millions of Coal Workers”
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600927/protests-rise-as-china-lays-off-millions-of-coal-workers/

    Quote

    China is finally making progress in curing its coal addiction, but the withdrawal symptoms are starting to hit some of its most vulnerable citizens. The government said on Monday that 1.8 million workers in the coal and steel industries will be laid off this year, representing more than 10 percent of the total steel workforce and fully one-fifth of the workers in the coal industry, according to economic research firm IHS Insights. The central government says it will invest more than $15 billion in retraining and job placement for laid-off workers. -end quote

    (by the way that is $8,333.33 per person. According to CNN’s online global wage calculator, which uses data from the International Labor Organization, the average annual salary of a worker in China’s private sector was 28,752 yuan (about $4,755)).

    That leaves over $6 billion to build new factories… (assume paying each laid off worker an annual salary for one year of retraining and job placement)

    Will China put these folks to working MEGA LENR reactor factories?

    Of course they will, in a heart beat.

    Consider “the drama of the jobs bound to coal mining” (quote Andre Rossi) in regards to their disruption due to LENR transition.

    Ask yourself this…

    Would you rather work in a coal mine in China, in the U.S. or elsewhere, or would you like to work in an LENR thermal reactor factory or at a coal fired power plant LENR conversion project?

    Which will ensure more jobs and a robust economy (and pleasantly healthy work environment), coal mining work or LENR energy transition work?

    LENR Waves of Transition and Electrical Power Production
    http://gbgoble.kinja.com/lenr-waves-of-transition-and-electrical-power-productio-1763183574?rev=1457825002227

    • chong chin

      Needless to say, its LENR all the way man,,!

  • Omega Z

    Hydro Fusion is a licensee of Leonardo just as Industrial Heat.

    I would accept that the Primary story here is for the most part right. The details tho are murky. I believe this $121 million USD investment is towards the new Technology Park whose primary purpose according to data viewed earlier is LENR Technology.

    That would be all technology associated with LENR/E-cats including adaptive technology to make it usable as LENR is not drop in replacement ready. So Funds not spent on LENR will be indirectly LENR related.

    • Warthog

      Almost certainly not. The dollar figure is way too small. See my comments above.

      • Omega Z

        You’re thinking in terms of entirety. I’m thinking in terms of just a start.
        Considering a manufacture-able product is not even ready yet, A $121 million is a good start.

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    Now the key question is how to build an evolutionary path and not a disruptive path for the adoption of LENR. This is obviously deeply linked to the development of the technology. As all players anticipe… if someone is talking about the efficiency of the market bla bla… then let ‘s say very serious improvements are required. We have 15 years.

    Michel
    LENR-Cities.

    • LarryJ

      I think Rossi’s idea of an initial massive production will allow the quickest dissemination of the tech and as a result the shortest path and the least disruption. The people and businesses most disrupted (with the exception of the fossil fuel and alternative energy companies) will be those businesses and people who won’t or can’t adopt the new tech. If enough product is available from the start then the transition will be quick, everyone’s input costs will drop together and the economy will soar. Many people on the production side of fossil and alternative energies are highly skilled, both white and blue collar and should have no problem finding opportunity in a reinvigorated and ultra clean economy.

      In 15 years the world will be unrecognizable from today. I think 5 years for this tech to become ubiquitous would be a more reasonable prediction. Businesses that don’t adopt this technology asap will not need 15 years to make it through bankruptcy.

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        This is what disruption is 🙂

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    Now the key question is how to build an evolutionary path and not a disruptive path for the adoption of LENR. This is obviously deeply linked to the development of the technology. As all players anticipe… if someone is talking about the efficiency of the market bla bla… then let ‘s say very serious improvements are required. We have 15 years.

    Michel
    LENR-Cities.

    • LarryJ

      I think Rossi’s idea of an initial massive production will allow the quickest dissemination of the tech and as a result the shortest path and the least disruption. The people and businesses most disrupted (with the exception of the fossil fuel and alternative energy companies) will be those businesses and people who won’t or can’t adopt the new tech. If enough product is available from the start then the transition will be quick, everyone’s input costs will drop together and the economy will soar. Many people on the production side of fossil and alternative energies are highly skilled, both white and blue collar and should have no problem finding opportunity in a reinvigorated and ultra clean economy.

      In 15 years the world will be unrecognizable from today. I think 5 years for this tech to become ubiquitous would be a more reasonable prediction. Businesses that don’t adopt this technology asap will not need 15 years to make it through bankruptcy.

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        This is what disruption is 🙂

  • Barbierir

    The statement by Hydrofusion is almost certain misleading, this seems the sum invested in the whole tech park, IH is one among many guests but 121 milions weren’t invested specifically in IH, let alone Lenr

    • Warthog

      I kind of doubt that. $121MM sounds like a lot to you and me, but wouldn’t go very far in establishing a technology park. Buildings designed especially for science are far more costly than even things like skycrapers, as the amount and type of installed utilities (electrical, gas transmission systems (multiple for different gases), computer cabling, fume evacuation and associated ducting, HVAC (heating and cooling for science purposes is far more complex than for standard construction)).

      I know more than the typical science geek about this, as I was part of a team involved in designing a new R&D location for a major chemical company.

      • Barbierir

        Thanks, it could be as you said but in such case I wish Hydrofusion had posted something to back this up, at least a news article!
        If the Chinese government has invested $121MM in Lenr research it’s a really huge news, how is it possible that there isn’t any other source to confirm it? I’m sorry to say this really sounds as made up BS by Hydrofusion

        • Warthog

          I think that is exactly what this is….a huge deal. Building a technology park requires billions of dollars, not millions. But $121MM “is” about the right size for a minor government funded research project. For comparison, the link below contains the US contribution for ONE YEAR to the IFTER….$150MM:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

          Note that that is NOT the annual budget…just the US share.

          • Barbierir

            I see, and $121MM is probably larger than the sum of all public and private LENR investements in the last 25 years. We should ask Hydrofusion to clarify such news (and maybe IH for confirmation), they can’t throw a bomb like that without a shred of evidence. This either huge or total BS

          • Barbierir

            I wrote Hydrofusion asking for more info about it. If other people do the same maybe they’ll publish something

          • Omega Z

            $150MM is direct contribution of ITER. Many Million’s more indirectly by way of MIT etc and NIF-National Ignition Facility of several 100 million a year.

          • Warthog

            Oh, I am well aware of that. I’m seeking to point out that sums of the order of $100-200 million are “project sized” and that “system sized” budgets are much higher (considering a research park to be a “system size” undertaking.

        • Warthog

          Another interesting number:

          The Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT, one of many around the world, has an annual budget of about $30 million a year.

          http://news.mit.edu/2014/mit-fusion-experiment-energized-by-new-budget

        • EEStorFanFibb

          Why don’t you put your reporter hat on and ask around for some proof of this $121M claim. Ask Hydrofusion for clarification/evidence for example.

          • Barbierir

            done 🙂

        • Omega Z

          Not the Chinese government. These are Chinese business people some of which are U.S. citizens who do business there because of family connections.

      • Heath

        The technology park is a joint venture between the Chinese and US. That’s where the money is coming from.

    • Warthog

      Here is an interesting PDF file for renovating A SINGLE BUILDING for science purposes (an STEM teaching facility). Note that this is not building new from scratch. A facility for actual R&D would be more complex and more costly than this:

      $92MM

      https://www.wwu.edu/wwuarchitect/pages/cb/documents/15-17%20CR%20Science_Bldg.pdf

  • Barbierir

    The statement by Hydrofusion is almost certain misleading, this seems the sum invested in the whole tech park, IH is one among many guests but 121 milions weren’t invested specifically in IH, let alone Lenr

    • Warthog

      I kind of doubt that. $121MM sounds like a lot to you and me, but wouldn’t go very far in establishing a technology park. Buildings designed especially for science are far more costly than even things like skycrapers, as the amount and type of installed utilities (electrical, gas transmission systems (multiple for different gases), computer cabling, fume evacuation and associated ducting, HVAC (heating and cooling for science purposes is far more complex than for standard construction)).

      I know more than the typical science geek about this, as I was part of a team involved in designing a new R&D location for a major chemical company.

      • Barbierir

        Thanks, it could be as you said but in such case I wish Hydrofusion had posted something to back this up, at least a news article!
        If the Chinese government has invested $121MM in Lenr research it’s a really huge news, how is it possible that there isn’t any other source to confirm it? I’m sorry to say this really sounds as made up BS by Hydrofusion

        • Warthog

          I think that is exactly what this is….a huge deal. Building a technology park requires billions of dollars, not millions. But $121MM “is” about the right size for a minor government funded research project. For comparison, the link below contains the US contribution for ONE YEAR to the IFTER….$150MM:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

          Note that that is NOT the annual budget…just the US share.

          • Barbierir

            I see, and $121MM is probably larger than the sum of all public and private LENR investements in the last 25 years. We should ask Hydrofusion to clarify such news (and maybe IH for confirmation), they can’t throw a bomb like that without a shred of evidence. This either huge or total BS

          • Warthog

            Almost certainly correct. To show the true extent of the “dog-in-the-manger” approach of the “hot physics crowd”….Peter Hagelstein had procured a SMALL private industry research grant ($90,000). Someone in the MIT physics dept. contacted the company and raised hell to the point that they cancelled the grant.

            The DOE has held two research colloquia on LENR, with the final recommendation of both being that LENR research SHOULD BE FUNDED until an affirmative positive or negative experimentally based result on the reality or non-reality of LENR was established. No such finding ever happened.

          • Barbierir

            I wrote Hydrofusion asking for more info about it. If other people do the same maybe they’ll publish something

          • bachcole

            “they can’t throw a bomb like that without a shred of evidence” Oh yes they can.

          • Omega Z

            $150MM is direct contribution of ITER. Many Million’s more indirectly by way of MIT etc and NIF-National Ignition Facility of several 100 million a year.

          • Warthog

            Oh, I am well aware of that. I’m seeking to point out that sums of the order of $100-200 million are “project sized” and that “system sized” budgets are much higher (considering a research park to be a “system size” undertaking.

        • Warthog

          Another interesting number:

          The Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT, one of many around the world, has an annual budget of about $30 million a year.

          http://news.mit.edu/2014/mit-fusion-experiment-energized-by-new-budget

        • Why don’t you put your reporter hat on and ask around for some proof of this $121M claim. Ask Hydrofusion for clarification/evidence for example.

        • Omega Z

          Not the Chinese government. These are Chinese business people some of which are U.S. citizens who do business there because of family connections.

      • Heath

        The technology park is a joint venture between the Chinese and US. That’s where the money is coming from.

    • Warthog

      Here is an interesting PDF file for renovating A SINGLE BUILDING for science purposes (an STEM teaching facility). Note that this is not building new from scratch. A facility for actual R&D would be more complex and more costly than this:

      $92MM

      https://www.wwu.edu/wwuarchitect/pages/cb/documents/15-17%20CR%20Science_Bldg.pdf

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day

  • Hi all

    Our Guest has made the correct assessment.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    Our Guest has made the correct assessment.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    For those looking for early info on the ERV report. Join the dots. 😉

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    For those looking for early info on the ERV report. Join the dots. 😉

    Kind Regards walker

  • Rene

    Looking forward to seeing LENR heater/generator on Banggood.com

  • LarryJ

    Some people here have wondered how Woodford Patient Captal Trust (WPCT) might do if IH turned out to be the next stock market high tech success.

    Lets take a stab at it.

    First we need to make some assumptions.

    1. Assume that in 10 years IH has a market capitalization of 500 Billion USD. This is just less than Apple and a bit more than Google. Facebook is worth 311 Billion and was founded in 2004 so capitalized values of high tech companies can rise quickly if the company succeeds and the economy is strong. I am assuming a successful ecat will result in a very strong economy. Maybe the strongest in history.

    2. Assume that all the other 67 positions in WPCT are worthless in 10 years. Given the acumen of its managers in identifying IH, its potential, their due diligence process and willingness to take on risk, this is an extremely conservative and unlikely assumption.

    3. From earlier comments here we will assume that Woodford purchased 5% of IH which we know was split between their two funds. So WPCT holds around 2.5% of IH

    4. At a market value of 500 Billion USD the fund will be worth 2.5% of 500 Billion or 12.5 Billion USD.

    5. WPCT today has a value of 733 Million GBP or just over 1 Billion USD

    6. Therefore, with these assumptions WPCT’s value would have
    increased to 12.5 Billion (then) / 1 Billion (now) or 12.5 times. If you invested 10,000 USD it would in 10 years have a value of 125,000 USD

    7. This portfolio is chock full of high tech startups which we have assumed will all fail. That is an unlikely scenario given what the ecat could do for the economy in general if it succeeds as hoped. This portfolio would probably do well even without IH in it. So if IH succeeds and this fund has a couple of other winners, our very conservative estimate of 12.5 times could be very much higher. Keep in mind that there are no guarantees that IH will succeed but check out their territory in the graphic.

    • Omega Z

      If Industrial Heat LLC were to go public, it is very likely it would be re-branded. LLC’s are seldom taken public. They usually stay private partnerships.

    • Josh Guetzkow

      Interesting analysis. However, I’m not at all sure about the assumption that “a successful ecat will result in a very strong economy. Maybe the strongest in history.”

      In the short run I think it will be very destabilizing. Realize that the ‘proven reserves’ owned by oil companies has been valued at hundreds of billions if not tens of trillions of dollars. Those assets have been used as collateral for enormous loans (in other words, those assets are leveraged out the yin yang). Now imagine what will happen when the underlying value of those assets vaporizes? Remember 2008 when the value of CDOs collapsed? This is going to make that look like child’s play.

      The derivatives market is going to collapse, along with others, I imagine, and a stupefyingly vast sum of paper wealth is going to evaporate virtually overnight. We’re likely to see a wave of bank and investor failures (Lehman Brothers on steroids). The other sad part about it is that the people who have seen this coming (looking at you, BlackRock) have steered (public) pension funds into oil and fossil fuel investments. So tens of millions of workers we can kiss their pensions good bye.

      That doesn’t sound to me like the makings for a very strong economy, let alone the strongest in history. Maybe in the long term. But in the short term and medium, chaos. That’s my prediction, anyway. Sure hope I’m wrong. But we’ll soon find out!

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        Josh, I share your overall statement with business as usual.. Our analysis is Time to Transition is the key factor. Main issue is not energy sector itself but all other sectors which will become energetically autonomous… only centralized energy production can be under control. Who would control innovation in all sectors, any country?

      • Energy commodity market has gone från $8.5 trillion -> $3.6 trillion in 18 months already. That is $5tn (6.5%) of world GDP gone. The risk has been nicely moved from banks and oilcos to the taxpayer pension and savings. It’s over. Some countries, oligarchs, rulers and random warlords will still suffer, like the Saudis, who are planning to sell Aramco in a giant IPO. I’ve been following it on http://sifferkoll.se four+ years now.

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          Paradoxically, LENR disruption on the energy sector need to be low… LENR impact on the energy sector itself must be minimized. Make sense then… The true transition will come from all other sectors. It is the only way to balance value creation and destruction… with products coming fast enough to balance the whole process…ideally fast enough to generate growth to get additional value to fuel the transition. Building the corresponding viral business model is the challenge… we think feasible at lenr-cities.

    • bachcole

      Nice.

  • LarryJ

    Some people here have wondered how Woodford Patient Captal Trust (WPCT) might do if IH turned out to be the next stock market high tech success.

    Lets take a stab at it.

    First we need to make some assumptions.

    1. Assume that in 10 years IH has a market capitalization of 500 Billion USD. This is just less than Apple and a bit more than Google. Facebook is worth 311 Billion and was founded in 2004 so capitalized values of high tech companies can rise quickly if the company succeeds and the economy is strong. I am assuming a successful ecat will result in a very strong economy. Maybe the strongest in history.

    2. Assume that all the other 67 positions in WPCT are worthless in 10 years. Given the acumen of its managers in identifying IH, its potential, their due diligence process and willingness to take on risk, this is an extremely conservative and unlikely assumption.

    3. From earlier comments here we will assume that Woodford purchased 5% of IH which we know was split between their two funds. So WPCT holds around 2.5% of IH

    4. At a market value of 500 Billion USD, WPCT will be worth 2.5% of 500 Billion or 12.5 Billion USD.

    5. WPCT today has a value of 733 Million GBP or just over 1 Billion USD

    6. Therefore, with these assumptions WPCT’s value would have
    increased to 12.5 Billion (then) / 1 Billion (now) or 12.5 times. If you invested 10,000 USD it would in 10 years have a value of 125,000 USD

    7. WPCT’s portfolio is chock full of high tech startups which we have assumed will all fail. That is an unlikely scenario given what the ecat could do for the economy in general if it succeeds as hoped. This portfolio would probably do well even without IH in it. So if IH succeeds and this fund has a couple of other winners, our very conservative estimate of 12.5 times could be very much higher. Keep in mind that there are no guarantees that IH will succeed but check out their territory in the graphic.

    I am not an investment adviser and I do hold a position in WPCT

    • hi Larry. where did you get the data for number three? while about 2.5% of each woodford fund is in IH that’s not the same thing as woodford bought 5% of IH.

      I don’t remember ever seeing it disclosed how big a chunk (in percentage terms) woodford took of IH. so 50 million was 5% of the IH valuation? IH was actually valued at 1B at the time woodford invested? thx

      • LarryJ

        I used a figure that was guestimated by Guest in an earlier post to this topic.

        Guest -> Frank Acland
        • a day ago

        Yeah, that’s publicly available (if you know how to interpret investment documents)… some of your other threads point to documents that contain the nformation.

        Looks like based on the price per share paid by Woodford and the total outstanding shares there was a $1B pre-money valuation for IH. Before anyone misinterprets that, it does not mean there is $1B invested in IH, just that in order to purchase shares Woodford had to pay as if the company was worth $1B. As a result, Woodford’s $50M investment would have bought them just shy of 5% of IH.

        • Thanks. Interesting valuation. I might have pick up some woodford shares if my ESU shares ever pop. LOL

    • Omega Z

      If Industrial Heat LLC were to go public, it is very likely it would be re-branded. LLC’s are seldom taken public. They usually stay private partnerships.

    • Josh G

      Interesting analysis. However, I’m not at all sure about the assumption that “a successful ecat will result in a very strong economy. Maybe the strongest in history.”

      In the short run I think it will be very destabilizing. Realize that the ‘proven reserves’ owned by oil companies has been valued at hundreds of billions if not tens of trillions of dollars. Those assets have been used as collateral for enormous loans (in other words, those assets are leveraged out the yin yang). Now imagine what will happen when the underlying value of those assets vaporizes? Remember 2008 when the value of CDOs collapsed? This is going to make that look like child’s play.

      The derivatives market is going to collapse, along with others, I imagine, and a stupefyingly vast sum of paper wealth is going to evaporate virtually overnight. We’re likely to see a wave of bank and investor failures (Lehman Brothers on steroids). The other sad part about it is that the people who have seen this coming (looking at you, BlackRock) have steered (public) pension funds into oil and fossil fuel investments. So tens of millions of workers we can kiss their pensions good bye.

      That doesn’t sound to me like the makings for a very strong economy, let alone the strongest in history. Maybe in the long term. But in the short term and medium, chaos. That’s my prediction, anyway. Sure hope I’m wrong. But we’ll soon find out!

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        Josh, I share your overall statement with business as usual.. Our analysis is Time to Transition is the key factor. Main issue is not energy sector itself but all other sectors which will become energetically autonomous… only centralized energy production can be under control. Who would control innovation in all sectors, any country?

      • You explained well what I have been trying to say for years. 100s of billions of stranded assets brings chaos and market upheaval. But I say bring it on anyway. It could be quite the show.

      • Energy commodity market has gone från $8.5 trillion -> $3.6 trillion in 18 months already. That is $5tn (6.5%) of world GDP gone. The risk has been nicely moved from banks and oilcos to the taxpayer pension and savings. It’s over. Some countries, oligarchs, rulers and random warlords will still suffer, like the Saudis, who are planning to sell Aramco in a giant IPO. I’ve been following it on http://sifferkoll.se four+ years now.

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          Paradoxically, LENR disruption on the energy sector need to be low… LENR impact on the energy sector itself must be minimized. Make sense then… The true transition will come from all other sectors. It is the only way to balance value creation and destruction… with products coming fast enough to balance the whole process…ideally fast enough to generate growth to get additional value to fuel the transition. Building the corresponding viral business model is the challenge… we think feasible at lenr-cities.

        • bachcole

          There is no real lose. There is exactly the same goods and services as before the drop. (hopefully) There is only the value of money going up. This deflation will hurt some people and help other people.

      • Michael S

        The strong economy will come from :
        1) increased purchase power of general population (money not spent in expensive hydrocarbon – and also classics sustainable energies)
        2) global spree of equipment to transit from classic power production to Lenr power production
        3) huge research activity to copy, scale, and develop Lenr applications in all fields (energy, all kinds of waste management, artificial plastics etc
        4) low grid/gridless Lenr energy production will boost economic and social progress in developing countries: probably the most important positive effect of Lenr age together with co2 control)
        5) travel : will become permanently 20-20% less expensive. Super sonic travel be it hydrogen or Lenr based/hybrid will be financially feasible and widespread (don’t forget that aircrews and equipment amortization cost much less on a two hour transatlantic flight then on 8 h classics sub sonic flight)

        It is the synergistic effect of these plus other developments that could create a very long and strong economic cycle (and therefore up in equity markets).

        But the short term shock will have to be balanced : especially heavily

    • bachcole

      Nice.

  • LarryJ

    I used a figure that was guestimated by Guest in an earlier post to this topic.

    Guest -> Frank Acland
    • a day ago

    Yeah, that’s publicly available (if you know how to interpret investment documents)… some of your other threads point to documents that contain the nformation.

    Looks like based on the price per share paid by Woodford and the total outstanding shares there was a $1B pre-money valuation for IH. Before anyone misinterprets that, it does not mean there is $1B invested in IH, just that in order to purchase shares Woodford had to pay as if the company was worth $1B. As a result, Woodford’s $50M investment would have bought them just shy of 5% of IH.

  • jimbo92107

    If the Big Report comes out negative (“It’s all an elaborate hoax”), I’m going to be so embarrassed. I just recommended my best buddy to quietly divest himself of all fossil fuel related stocks before Thursday.

    Rossi’s initial e-cat thermal tech will quickly be adopted by all municipalities looking to save big bucks and the environment with dirt-cheap, pollution free nuclear electricity. How could any government turn down the chance to be rid of all the CO2, hydrocarbon pollution and cost of coal and oil? Who would not prefer turbines driven by a few pounds of lithium, hydrogen and nickel to power a whole city, rather than burning megatons of dirty, expensive carbon fuel?

    Once the ecatx tech is ready, the switch-over should really hit high gear. By then, fossil fuel stocks should be totally tanked, as nobody buys coal or oil to power grid turbines.

    Yeah, it’s going to be interesting times, but the end results will be amazingly positive.

  • jimbo92107

    If the Big Report comes out negative (“It’s all an elaborate hoax”), I’m going to be so embarrassed. I just recommended my best buddy to quietly divest himself of all fossil fuel related stocks before Thursday.

    Rossi’s initial e-cat thermal tech will quickly be adopted by all municipalities looking to save big bucks and the environment with dirt-cheap, pollution free nuclear electricity. How could any government turn down the chance to be rid of all the CO2, hydrocarbon pollution and cost of coal and oil? Who would not prefer turbines driven by a few pounds of lithium, hydrogen and nickel to power a whole city, rather than burning megatons of dirty, expensive carbon fuel?

    Once the ecatx tech is ready, the switch-over should really hit high gear. By then, fossil fuel stocks should be totally tanked, as nobody buys coal or oil to power grid turbines.

    Yeah, it’s going to be interesting times, but the end results will be amazingly positive.

  • Julian Becker

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/2015-10/20/c_1116884564.htm

    I found the Chinese press release from October. The park is still the same as previously visited by Tom Darden. It is NOT located in Beijing but in Baoding, Hebei Province.

  • Julian Becker

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/2015-10/20/c_1116884564.htm

    I found the Chinese press release from October. The park is still the same as previously visited by Tom Darden. It is NOT located in Beijing but in Baoding, Hebei Province.