# Rossi: Maximum Heat: 600 C on Secondary Circuit, ROI Less than 2 Years

Here are a couple of new pieces of information about the E-Cat QX plants from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today.

Elliot
February 16, 2018 at 12:53 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Which is the max temperature you can reach on a secondary circuit?

Andrea Rossi
February 16, 2018 at 7:17 AM
Elliot:
600 C degrees.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

A.
February 15, 2018 at 5:06 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
How much long you think will be the payback period of an indistrial Ecat?

Andrea Rossi
February 16, 2018 at 7:18 AM
A.:
less than 2 years.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I take temperature on the secondary circuit to mean the temperature on the other side of the heat exchanger from the E-Cat QX reactors themselves, which Rossi has said reach 2600 C. 600 C would be enough heat to be able to provide steam heat at temperatures for the most efficient electricity generation. The production of supercritical steam, where water instantly becomes steam (thus no boiling occurs) requires 570 C.

A payback period of less than two years for an e-cat plant would seem to be an attractive investment option for companies. Andrea Rossi has stated that the cost of a 1 MW plant would be ‘much less’ than the \$1.5 million he had priced the early shipping container E-Cat plants at — but so far he has declined to give any specific estimate of cost. Rossi has said that the costs for refueling the E-Cats once per year will be insignificant — so providing the plants work, this could lead to massive savings in future fuel costs for E-Cat users.

• Dr. Mike

Is the 600C a theoretical temperature or the actual temperature that can be achieved by the initial design of the QX module? What comparative fuel did Rossi base his answer to the payback question? Producing 1MW of heat using electricity for 2 years at a cost of about \$0.10/ KW-Hr would have a total fuel cost of about \$1.75M. The same heat produced by natural gas, assuming a cost of \$0.04/KW-Hr would have a total fuel cost of about \$700K.

• causal observer

If the 1MW QX is aimed at heating water (steam, working fluid) then it seems there would be small market overlap with heaters that use electricity (e.g. immersion coils). Then also there are diesel and home heating oil.

• Dr. Mike

I think the QX system will compete with all fuels (including electricity) that are currently used to heat water. The real issue is when will the QX system achieve the reliability of current heating systems, which I might add is very good. (In 40 years of owning gas water heaters, the only failures that i have experienced are leaking tanks.) I don’t see any company selling a product using the QX modules for their source of heat until the reliability of the QX module heating system is demonstrated to be as good as existing systems.

• Alan DeAngelis
• Stephen Taylor

So, abundant steam at ideal temperatures for driving turbines can be generated by this quark x system. In the Stockhom six minute video Rossi indicates a COP between 400 and 500.

One would not require a highly efficient boiler/turbine to convert this steam to electricity profitably. Even at 10 percent efficiency the output of electricity would be much much greater that the input electricity needed to drive the quark x.

Forget self looping, buy the electricity from the local power company and sell the output back to them. If you make money the quark x is proven to be a game changer and investors will flock to your door. The world will celebrate the arrival of unlimited clean and cheap energy. Rossi will be a hero and get the Nobel prize.

A low efficiency boiler and turbine at 1 MW would not cost a great deal of money. Seems like something a reasonable inventor might consider doing to prove, once and for all, that his exceptional claims can be proven with exceptional clarity.

On the other hand, if the system took more electricity from the power company than it was able to return, then investors would flee. Certainly it is Rossi’s show to run however he may choose. It just seems so darn obvious.

• Ophelia Rump

The price of the 1 MW Plant would be about half a million dollars, if the average cost of a watt hour is 14 cents. That is 240k dollars per year for two years.

• Buck

Ophelia,

it is my understanding that large buyers of grid power pay closer to 5 cents.

• Ophelia Rump

Thank you, that is interesting. Under \$200K seems like an extremely competitive price. I wonder if they would actually price it that low. By now they must have a fairly accurate estimate of the production cost.

• Buck

Ophelia,
I believe he intends to be very competitive. So, purely as a guess, I am aligning with a comment by Bruno just above:

“So his cost per 1 MW E-Cat (uninstalled) will probably need to be on the order of \$100,000.”

• sam

Raffaele Bongo
February 16, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Hello A. Rossi

At the November 24th presentation, the E-Cat demo did not seem autonomous yet. It seemed to me that you were adjusting some parameters.
Can you tell us if the E-cat 1MW will work in self-monitoring without supervision or human intervention outside the combustible change?

Best regards

Raffaele

Andrea Rossi
February 16, 2018 at 11:32 AM
Raffaele Bongo:
As a matter of fact, it was autonomus: I just had to stop it and restart it when we had to prepare it for the spectrometer or to substitute the Ecat with the dummies; the other intervention has been made when I opened an air intake window to change the air inside during the interruptions to keep it cool.
These interventions are not made during a normal operation of the Ecat QX, during which the Ecat is completely autonomous.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Vinney

This represents a revolution, the ROI against electricity only to produce 1MW heat is less than 2 years.
With the output steam at 600 degrees C there isn’t a venture capital fund/superannuation/ investors on the planet that will not be looking at investing in power generation with the Ecat.
There will be investment in micro and smart grids everywhere.
The developing world will have pockets everywhere of first world quality and some of the cheapest electricity on the planet.
The monopoly providers will be asking for government protection (subsidies), sanctions and regulation from attack on all flanks.
And their competition (much like Rossi) working only with ingenuity, insight and financial smarts.
They are going to have to lift their customer service and lower their prices to compete.
Rossi will have succeeded in incentizing investment from third parties into grids in far flung places of the globe.

This momentum can be increased by expediting liberalisation of investment regulation and infrastructure regulations, making way for lots of private investment and competition.
This provides lots of opportunities for small investment as the costs of these projects are meagre.
Renewables will continue to display their forte in niche and unique environments.
But the world will be conquered by the Ecat and its millions on independent operatives.

• greggoble

An interesting bit about heat requirements to operate a turbine using either a thermal salt cooling cycle or a light water cycle…

“China spending US\$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft carriers and in flying drones” Author: Nwo Report Date: December 7, 2017
https://nworeport.me/2017/12/07/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones/

quote: The US air force built a 2.5-megawatt molten salt reactor in the 1950s as part of a program to develop nuclear-powered aircraft engines.

The reactors use molten salt rather than water as a coolant, allowing them to create temperatures of over 800 degrees Celsius, nearly three times the temperature of a commercial pressure water nuclear plant. The superhot air had the potential to drive turbines and jet engines and in theory keep a bomber flying at supersonic speed for days. – end quote

and from wiki –
Light water is used as the primary coolant in a PWR. Water enters through the bottom of the reactor’s core at about 548 K (275 °C; 527 °F) and is heated as it flows upwards through the reactor core to a temperature of about 588 K (315 °C; 599 °F)

• Gerard McEk

A ROI of 2 year is no doubt the ROI is in comparison with electrical heating systems. When using natural gas, it might be 6 years. The Netherlands was is big supplier of natural gas for a major part of Europe, has now to reduce the gas production because it causes local earthquakes. Imported gas is of different quality so it would require a huge investment to change all gas burning equipment. The Dutch government envisages another direction: Usage of heat pumps, insulation and solar water heating. A totally delusional idea, because it cannot be realized in the wanted time frame.
Maybe providing hot water for house heating per district with a centralized QX is workable. Let us hope that Andrea really can prove what he is saying!

• Mylan

Who would produce 1 MW of heat electrically? I don’t think that would make sense economically. Also, remember Rossi had gas powered Ecats, so gas heating is surely on Rossi’s mind.

• Omega Z

->”Who would produce 1 MW of heat electrically?”

Electric heat is big for Industrial purposes. It would also be a big component in Oil and Gas refineries.

• Alan DeAngelis

MSM will try to warn us about the QXs taking over but they will be too late.

• LilyLover

“Eventually energy will be almost free” doesn’t mean it is free – now!
The ROI is based on continued scenario replaced by E-Cat.
When fuel becomes say quarter-price, your ROI numbers for the company might be in decades.
BUT overall ROI to the society in driving down the fuel costs, shall we say, will be realized within a month of crashed oil prices?
Or, for that matter, did the ROI of negative four years allow the world a downward pricing pressure on oil since the publication of Lugano? In my opinion, this is the only known meaningful endeavor that has borne the fruits of success even before birth of the product.
Quite impressive, so quit obfuscating.

• Omega Z

Multiple factors are involved in price declines. Wind and Solar have had an impact as well as advances in efficiency improvements in electronics and vehicles mileage etc,,,

The single biggest component has been the U.S. Oil and Gas production increases. The increase in N-gas supply is evident in the news reports. Oil less so, but U.S. Oil production increased from 4.9 mb/d to 10.4 mb/d in 7 years. This is expected to surpass 11 mb/d this year more then 2 years ahead of past projections.

This is mostly due to the Small oil companies. They’ve had to be innovative to compete against the big boys and they’ve been very innovative. Current cost of Shale oil wells is \$20 a barrel and still make a small profit.

In Obama’s last year in office, they tried to come up with a presidential directive that would shut the small innovative companies down without doing to much harm to Big Oil but didn’t get the job done. It wouldn’t have mattered as Big oil had already taken notice of these innovations due to low oil prices and were already adding them to their tool box as well as hiring these people.

Big investors have been gradually extricating themselves from the Oil sands as the minimal profits/ROI doesn’t justify the heat they receive from the environmental groups. However, these small innovative companies have apparently developed a new process that eliminates all the local environmental damage and are aiming for these projects. They can extract the oil without removing the Oil sands. Expect to achieve similar \$20 a barrel cost as in the Shale oil wells.

I doubt LENR has had any real impact and tho I expect some response when a product actually makes it to market, It will be short lived as it will take decades for this technology to transition. In the mean time, Fossil resources will be in decline and tho the timing wont be exact, Oil, N-gas and Coal will decline to production of feed stock. About 20% of todays production.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.