The E-Cat and Food Industry — Rossi Says Partnering with ‘US Global Company’

In comments on the Journal of Nuclear Physics over the last couple of days, Andrea Rossi seems to have confirmed that his first partner is in the food industry.

Here are some questions and answers on the subjects:

Mitch
April 8, 2018 at 4:36 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I think that the food industry is the one that mostly can take advantage of your technology, what do you think?
Mitch

Andrea Rossi
April 8, 2018 at 8:06 AM
Mitch:
Yes, I think that the food industry will be among the most reactive , at least initially.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
April 9, 2018 at 9:41 PM
Dear Andrea,

I was interested your comment about the food industry being reactive to the E-Cat. It is a huge market that uses massive amounts of heat. Think of all the baking, boiling, heating, steaming, sterilizing, etc. that takes place in all kinds of food and drink processing plants.

Here is one example, a Frito Lay factory for making potato chips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws_K9Cxs-uE

Interesting they use co-generation in their plants — their natural gas powered deep fryers also generate electricity so the whole plant is off grid.

What do you think about applying the heat of the E-Cat for plants like this?

Andrea Rossi
April 9, 2018 at 9:49 PM
Frank Acland:
I think there will be important developments in the food industry sector related to the Ecat. Their strong need of heat to process their products makes them the ideal match for the Ecat. So the Ecat will say, like a poet: ” M’illumino di mensa”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Elliott Wilcher
April 10, 2018 at 3:45 AM
Dr Rossi:
It is clear after your answers of yesterday that you are partnering with an important company in the food business. Can you say where is it located?

Andrea Rossi
April 10, 2018 at 6:42 AM
Elliott Wilcher:
It is a US global company.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The food and drinks industry would seem to me to be a very good industry in which to deploy the E-Cat since so much energy is required to provide the massive amounts of heat that is required for all the baking, pasteurizing, boiling, steaming, sterilizing, drying, etc. that takes place in different types of food processing.

Rossi states above that he is partnering with a US global company, of which there are plenty within the food sector. If you are a food producer you are naturally going to want to cut your overhead costs, of which energy for heating is probably one of the most significant. I found it interesting in the video I linked mentioned above, that the Frito Lay plant in Killingly, Connecticut their deep fryers are powered by natural gas in a co-generation system which also provides all the electricity that the factory needs. If a food plant like this was on board with the E-Cat, I am sure they would be working to employ the E-Cat to provide not only their heat, but electricity also.

  • gdaigle

    That’s good news for my state, Minnesota. We have lots of corporate headquarters here of firms that do food and grain processing including, but not limited to:

    Buffalo Wild Wings
    Cargill
    Cub Foods
    Econofoods
    General Mills
    Green Giant
    Hormel
    Land O’Lakes
    Midwest Supplies
    MOM Brands
    PepsiAmericas
    Pillsbury
    Schwan Food Company

  • causal observer

    Energy use in the food industry:

    https://www.chooseenergy.com/blog/energy-101/energy-food-production/

    Food Processing
    Food processing takes up an increasingly large share of the energy used in food production. In recent years, it has jumped from 11%-16% of the total amount of energy use in the food system Processing refers to the transformation of raw ingredients into a food product, such as the processing of raw corn into cereal. Food processing consumes 1,640 trillion BTUs of energy per year.

    • frank

      This is all nice but first let’s wait for the first commercial product. In order to save that much money you will need millions of Ecats in use, which we won’t see within the next years. And I do not expect Leonardo Corp to go public without having a product in the market that no one haven’t even seen, used or tested yet. So unfortunately we have to wait and see, instead of ordering products or buying shares….

      • LarryJ

        If Rossi’s ecat is all that we hope it is then the dissemination of it will be very fast. The first two factories will be proof of concept and they will be working models on which to base new factories. The only thing missing will be capital and Rossi has already said that as soon as he is in production he plans to go public to raise the necessary funds. The capital markets are awash with cash for bright new ideas and they don’t get much brighter than this, especially if there are customers already using mass produced products.There will be ecat factories springing up all over the industrialized world. Millions of ecats will not be a problem.

        • sam

          The smart phone will
          always amaze me.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      The saving quoted assumes no cost for the energy in the e-cat system. The quoted gas rate is about $0.03 per kW-hr of energy, so the e-cat energy has to be far less than $0.03 for any saving! If it came to $0.02 per kW-hr, the saving would be only 1/3 of the quoted, and a cost of $0.02 is a very low energy cost.

  • scottlshman

    .

    If electricity could be generated using a LENR system then the generating plant could be in a safe and secure site and therefore the electricity could be sold directly to the national grid. The possibility that competitors could obtain a device and cheaply replicate such devices in a Far East low cost labour sweat shop would then be much reduced.

    .

    • Jonnyb

      Here lies the problem, electricity production.

    • Vinney

      Much more feasible with the 10kw and 100kw modules in the reactor heating assembly, rather than the 1kw.
      The size of the subsequent 10MW and 100MW generation plant are going to be very small.
      I wonder if with the new higher temperatures we have eliminated the use of natural gas to reach the optimal temperatures of steam turbines.

    • gdaigle

      The spin‐Seebeck effect mediated thermoelectric energy conversion can provide an efficient alternative to traditional thermoelectrics for waste heat recovery. Now a giant Rashba spin‐Seebeck effect has been demonstrated with results showing generation of 100.3 μV per 160 × 10 μm2.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pssr.201800064

    • greggoble

      If a food processing plant uses energy off the grid for processing and some of that energy was created by the Nuclear Power Industry… maybe I’ve been eating some nuclear processed food all along! Maybe I’ve been driving a nuclear powered car… or drilling with a nuclear powered drill…

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • sam

    Anonymous
    April 10, 2018 at 5:36 AM
    How are positioned now to start the sales within this year? Are the probabilities stable?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 10, 2018 at 6:39 AM
    Anonymous:
    Yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • kenko1

    I wonder if this food MFG company makes frozen french fries. If so,
    MY PRAYERS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED!

  • Buck

    It looks like the US global food company is an early adopter . . . they are willing to do some testing when the Ecat Qx goes on sale.

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

    Frank Acland
    April 11, 2018 at 8:40 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    The US global food company you mention, have they verified for themselves the performance of the E-Cat QX, and are satisfied it could be useful to them?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland
    __________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    April 11, 2018 at 9:56 AM

    Frank Acland:

    This will happen when we will be ready to start the sales of the product ready for industrialization.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • George N

    There are two reports of Negative Mass being discovered, where if the negative mass is pushed, it moves towards the pusher; and when pulled, it moves away from the puller. Negative mass could eventually be used in faster than light warp drives, anti-gravity skateboards, tractor beams, and more powerful and compact lasers. But I guess because the discoveries are microscopic and at superfluid temperatures, this has not generated a lot of fanfare — I cannot see to much scientific enthusiastic interest as well, but the sources are credible: https://m.phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.html

    http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/vamivakas-microcavity-negative-mass-generate-lasers-290202/

  • gdaigle

    Daiya Foods is now owned by Japanese harmaceutical company Otsuka, though Cargill does trade in the cassava and arrowroot starches from which Daiya cheeses are made. I’m more impressed with the vegan “impossible burger” served at lots of places in the U.S. A bit overcooked at the Agra Culture restaurant where I had it, but very beef-like and tasty.

    • Thanks for setting me straight, Greg. I knew that they were owned by Cargill, at one point, but, I guess, not any more. I’m glad that you are open to trying vegetable burgers. Too many carnivores are not.

      By the way, are you still working with those Orbo Power Packs? If so, you might be able to get McCarthy to explain how they work, to you…or, maybe not. I suspect that he may be more open to telling you because he has, recently, said that he is, now, working on a different approach to an everlasting battery. Check out this article:

      http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2018/03/update-on-steorns-spin-offs/

  • greggoble

    I enjoy Rossi advancement.

    Alway curious…

    A few questions.

    How might the weak nuclear force binding energy effect strong force nuclear reactions?

    https://www.google.com/search?biw=1164&bih=544&ei=iLLOWr3zNMOWsQXQ96EI&q=How+might+the+weak+nuclear+force+binding+energy+effect+strong+force+nuclear+reactions%3F&oq=How+might+the+weak+nuclear+force+binding+energy+effect+strong+force+nuclear+reactions%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.12…2247261.2286465.0.2288995.10.10.0.0.0.0.366.2085.0j6j3j1.10.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.597…35i39k1.0.y_wT7Go_0u0

    Understanding the weak nuclear force?

    https://www.google.com/search?ei=ObvOWs75LovojwSkqbGoDA&q=Understanding+the+weak+nuclear+force%3F&oq=Understanding+the+weak+nuclear+force%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i22i29i30k1l10.201585.201585.0.204304.1.1.0.0.0.0.182.182.0j1.1.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.181….0.P1POfVjA79Y

    Weak nuclear force and LENR energy systems?

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=lLzOWr6NJoTesAWCkbSgCw&q=Weak+nuclear+force+and+LENR+energy+systems%3F&oq=Weak+nuclear+force+and+LENR+energy+systems%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.3033.3033.0.4395.2.1.0.0.0.0.164.164.0j1.1.0….0…1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.163.0…0.FimkYlgLLsw

  • LarryJ

    You’re such a stick. Once proven and on the market the fun, the anticipation and the wonder will all be over like the day after xmas. Once this tech arrives people will treat it like another boring ho hum miracle like the smartphone and pretend it always existed. The journey is what I love. Knowing I saw it way before everybody and got to enjoy every minute of the roller-coaster ride to reality is the thrill for me. You refuse to suspend disbelief for even a minute, despite strong but not absolute evidence and miss out on it all for fear of disappointment. That’s a shame.

  • nietsnie

    “Large Processor Switches to Nuclear Heat For Food Production”

    “Campbell’s Soup: Now Glows In Dark!”

    There will be some uphill PR effort required here. The plan will not play out well in some sectors due to concerns about radiation. I’m surprised he picked food to go first.

    • Vinney

      For the temperatures food processing requires, the heat would be transferred via heat exchangers, one solution circulates the E-cat, another circuit (probably distilled water) is used in the food processing. This solution of distalled water has no contact with the reactor modules.
      Water does not transmit radiation, and is used as a radiation barrier in nuclear facilities. But particles in water can transmit radioactivity wherever they settle, including in the ground, ie: Fukushima.

      • nietsnie

        In addition LENR has far less radioactive emission (if any…).

        The facts don’t matter here. You and I have spent a lot of time thinking this over and reading. But, the public, who will not spend a lot of time, will hear, “nuclear” and “food” and make a snap judgement. Plus they won’t find out right away. They’ll realize they’ve been eating ‘nuclear food’ without even knowing it, without having the option, and they won’t be happy.

        They don’t like it when food is preserved by radiating it even though no radiation remains. They don’t like it when their plants are bio-engineered. When it comes up the food company will say, “Trust us – it’s OK”. But, the public will be dubious. They’ve been through that before (even if it is OK this time). Some may suggest that food resulting from a process that was heated by nuclear means be labeled in order that those who want to can avoid it for health reasons.

        It can be overcome, but it will require a lot of effort that could have been avoided by choosing some other industry to begin.

        • Omega Z

          The general public wont pay much attention and those who do will quickly move on to what the Kardashians or some other fake reality star is up to,

          When it was determined to radiate certain foods to kill certain bacteria, the people had forgotten it before the practice had even began. They suffer a serious case of ADD(Attention Deficit Disorder).

          • nietsnie

            There was a successful effort by those people to require foods in the US that have been irradiated to be labeled as such so that consumers whose opinion of its safety is different than the manufacturers or the FDA can choose to eat food that has not been. Same reason that stores can sell organic food for a premium and why there are strict rules as to what can be labeled ‘organic’.

            For a lot of people the answer to the question “Is irradiated food dangerous?” is “No-one knows yet” and so the safe thing to do is wait a few decades and see what happens to the guinee pigs (like me…) that ate it without knowing for sure. It’s much harder to prove that something new is safe than it is to prove that it is not. It is at least known that food that has been exposed to gamma, x-rays, or electron beams is chemically changed. Some people think they can taste it.

            http://www.sustainabletable.org/728/food-irradiation

            But this is getting away from my point – which is that a portion of the population will choose not to be the guinee pigs in a new food process that involves radiation. It doesn’t matter whether it is ultimately proven to be baseless or not. This is especially the case with nuclear power.

          • Omega Z

            If irradiated ingredients are added to foods that have not been irradiated, no special labeling is required on retail packages.

            Such as I have a product that includes irradiated eggs or some other ingredient, No label required.

            As to LENR- Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Just change the acronym.
            NMRI- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imager
            Became MRI- Magnetic Resonance Imager

            If the E-cat involves Magnetic Resonance, label it
            LEMR- Low Energy Magnetic Resonance.
            You can also use 1 of several labels/acronyms currently associated with this technology that doesn’t use the negative nuclear term. Or just educate people.

            People will also ignore certain details if the product has major benefits to them in their opinion. People are aware that microwaves, cell phones and WiFi give of radiations and are oblivious as to the difference of ionizing or non ionizing radiation. They just want what they want and expect the experts to look out for there safety. ???

            Anyway, this discussion is pretty pointless at this time. This technology will be used in industrial and power generation for sometime before the general public has access to it. The nuclear aspect will not delay this as there are many known uses of nuclear product used everywhere all the time in the world.

            Also, when available to the general public, I expect it to only be used for home heating. Generating electricity at the individual level will not be economical.

        • Vinney

          Part of the E-cat heat generation installation, and particularly for the food industry, that already has continuous sampling and testing for various bacteria, PPM contamination of various substances and heavy metals, and pathogens, will be continuous radiation monitoring (probably very near the reactor).
          Considering the separate circuits of heated fluids, I don’t think at this point the manufacturers are required to advice the public. But I agree, the FDA should legislate for continuous monitoring equipment to be installed whose data cannot be tampered, and can be monitored by the inspectors on a regular basis to begin with.
          If, as you say, the manufacturers have to declare use of the E-cat in food manufacturing, there will be a concentrated public education campaign, and as we know .the E-cat has been incident free for 10 years, with Rossi himself being the ‘live’ human testimony.
          This may be the contingency in ‘fast-tracking’ the 10kw and 100kw modules, so in case a ‘media’ backlash, the E-cat quickly moves to direct power generation, and locomotive applications (trains and cargo ships).

        • Karl Venter

          Their opposition will also not let you forget “Not produced by nuclear reaction:”

  • greggoble

    Thanks extended to a few of the folks at LENR forum who provided a couple of leads. I’ll be adding it to the United States Government LENR Energy 2018 review as Chapter 2…
    LENR at the NASA Glenn Research Center AEC Effort (alternative energy conversion)
    https://gbgoble.kinja.com/lenr-at-the-nasa-glenn-research-center-aec-effort-alte-1823892680

    • greggoble

      Nov. 7, 2017 Aviation Renaissance: NASA Advances Concepts for Next-gen Aircraft
      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/aviation-renaissance-nasa-advances-concepts-for-next-gen-aircraft

      Quote: Some of the key propulsion system advances the NASA Glenn team is pursuing converge in an aircraft concept study called STARC-ABL (single-aisle turboelectric aircraft with an aft [at the rear of the aircraft] boundary-layer propulsor).

      The STARC-ABL concept, developed by NASA’s Jim Felder and Jason Welstead, is under consideration as one of NASA’s future X-planes. It looks similar to the proven tube-and-wing aircraft you see every day. But, unlike those aircraft, a significant amount of electrical power, approximately three megawatts, is used for turboelectric propulsion, in addition to the electrical operation of subsystems like flight controls, avionics and de-icing. – end quotes

      Same person… James L. Felder

      Propulsion Systems Analysis Branch
      NASA Glenn Research Center
      Conceptual Design of a Single-Aisle Turboelectric Commercial Transport with

      Fuselage Boundary Layer Ingestion http://www.nianet.org/ODM/ODM%20Tuesday%20presentations%20Final/19%20Patterson%20starcabl_scitech2016_shortened_distribution_ODM.pdf

      James Felder also conceptualizes LENR powered flight in the NASA SUGAR program. 2012 NASA/Boeing Publication (applied engineering) NASA Contract NNL08AA16B – NNL11AA00T “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research – Phase II N+4 Advanced Concept Development” Pg. 24 -Even though we do not know the specific cost of the LENR itself, we assumed a cost of jet fuel at $4/gallon and weight based aircraft cost. We were able to calculate cost per mile for the LENR equipped aircraft compared to a conventional aircraft (Figure 3.2). Looking at the plots, one could select a point where the projected cost per mile is 33% less than a conventionally powered aircraft (Heat engine > 1 HP/lb & LENR > 3.5 HP/lb).

      (editor note) The NASA Working Group Report also makes public the following list of organizations and individuals working on the advanced concept contract:

      Boeing
      Marty Bradley, Christopher Droney, Zachary Hoisington, Timothy Allen, Dwaine Cotes, Yueping Guo, Brian Foist, Blaine Rawdon, Sean Wakayama, Emily Dallara, Ed Kowalski, Joe Wa, Ismail Robbana, Sergey Barmichev, Larry Fink, Mithra Sankrithi, Edward White

      General Electric
      Kurt Murrow, Jeff Hammel, Srini Gowda

      Georgia Tech
      Michelle Kirby, Hongjun Ran, Teawoo Nam, Jimmy Tai, Chris Perullo

      Vermont Tech
      Joe Schetz, Rakesh Kapania

      NASA
      Mark Guynn, Erik Olson, Gerald Brown, Larry Leavitt, Richard Wahls, Doug Wells, James Felder, Casey Burley, John Martin

      Federal Aviation Administration
      Rhett Jeffries, Christopher Sequiera
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.naWe also sa.gov/20120009038.pdf

      We also have Jim working on the 2014 NASA and Cal Tech Presentation (applied engineering) “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft” NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) 2014 Seedling Technical Seminar, February 19–27, 2014.
      California Polytechnic State University • Dr. Rob McDonald • Advanced Topics in Aircraft Design course (10wks) • Sponsored Research Project Team
      NASA Glenn Research Center • Jim Felder, Chris Snyder
      NASA Langley Research Center • Bill Fredericks, Roger Lepsch, John Martin, Mark Moore, Doug Wells, Joe Zawodny
      https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/SeedlingWELLS.pdf

      I think that NEAT at NASA Glenn Research Center is where we find the SUGAR concept and LENR flight concept coming together… the real deal!

      NASA Electric Aircraft Testbed (NEAT)
      Overview November 28, 2016
      https://www.energytech.org/wp-content/uploads/ET2016Presentations/ET16-2C2NASAElectricAircraftTestbedNEATDyson.pdf

      Executive Summary

      As large airline companies compete to reduce emissions, fuel burn, noise, and maintenance costs, it is expected that more of their aircraft systems will shift from using turbofan propulsion, pneumatic bleed power, and hydraulic actuation, to instead using electrical motor propulsion, generator power, and electrical actuation. This requires new flight-weight and flight-efficient powertrain components, fault tolerant power management, and electromagnetic interference mitigation technologies. And NEAT is the first reconfigurable hybrid gas-electric propulsion testbed capable of supporting full-scale single-aisle electrified aircraft powertrain technology including:

       High fidelity turbo-generation and ducted fan transient emulation,
       Establishing baseline power quality and electromagnetic interference levels,
       Validating aircraft powertrain modeling tools
       Demonstrating single-aisle flight-weight powertrains
       Ground test research motors and inverters under flight altitude conditions at full power levels

      NASA Electric Aircraft Test bed (NEAT) Development
      Plan—Design, Fabrication, Installation
      NASA/TM—2016-219085
      Rodger W. Dyson
      Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160010440.pdf

    • greggoble

      2016 NASA GRC AEC PineScie LENR Patent

      “Methods and apparatus for enhanced nuclear reactions” US20170263337A1 STATEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS This invention was made with government support under Contract No. NNC14CA16C (ed note: this is the 2017 research paper grant) awarded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Government has certain rights in the invention. Inventors: Vladimir Pines, Marianna Pines, Bruce Steinetz, Arnon Chait, Gustave Fralick, Robert Hendricks, Paul Westmeyer – Current Assignee: NASA Glenn Research Center, Pinesci Consulting – Priority date: 2016-03-09, Application: 2017-09-14. https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2017155520

      ed note: This patent citations include two patents “Method and apparatus for generating thermal energy” and “Methods of generating energetic particles using nanotubes and articles thereof” which have a classification: G21B3/00 Low temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged cold fusion reactors.

      USPTO Office Action Summary 4/8/18 at:

      https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.201615064649.A&documentId=2-7-US++150646490CP1+

  • LarryJ

    Can I help with what I saw before everybody that convinces me. You did ask and of course I can.

    I saw the demo in late 2011. That reactor was rumoured sold to military interests.
    ***************************************************************************
    Andrea Rossi launched the first commercial E-Cat plant, a 1 MW thermal
    power plant in Bologna, Italy on October 28th, 2011 which was tested and certified as being acceptable by an agent for an unknown customer.
    Rossi stated that the customer is a military entity that does not want
    to be identified. http://ecatworld.org/what-is-the-e-cat/
    ****************************************************************************
    The Ferarra Report done in Ferrara Italy between Nov 2012 and March 2013 by a credible group of physicists and funded by Elforsk.
    ====================================================
    After two separate tests, each lasting several days in length, the
    team concluded that much more energy was being produced by the E-Cat
    than could possibly have been produced by a chemical reaction. The team
    did not speculate as to what was creating this unusual amount of energy.
    Where can I read the report?

    Here is a link to a PDF of the Report which is titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device ”: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
    =======================================================

    The Lugano Report 2014

    On October 8th, 2014, a team of European academics released a report
    of their testing of an E-Cat device supplied to them by Industrial Heat,
    LLC which took place at Lugano, Switzerland. The report can be read in
    full at the following link:

    http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    The one year test of the 1MW Industrial prototype reactor. This test reactor was run 24/7 for 1 year to ratify the sale of the ecat IP to Industrial Heat. The reactor was required to produce an average COP of 6 but according the Expert Responsible for Verification (ERV) the average COP over the year long test was 50 and he declared the test a success. IH defaulted on the contract, were sued by Leonardo and relinquished all rights to the ecat in an out of court settlement.

    The settlement agreement:
    https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/settlement-agreement.pdf

    The ERV’s report

    https://113452-323143-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Expert-Responsible-for-Validation-Ing-Fabio-Penon-Nuclear-Engineer-for-1-MW-E-Cat.pdf

  • Miles

    More deflection from Rossi. I wonder what the next topic of discussion will be.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi has said that the product will be about 80% automated.(Robotics).
    Funny thing about Robots. They cost about the same to operate no matter where they are located in the world. Human labor cost no longer apply.

  • sam

    Albert
    April 12, 2018 at 1:19 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Do you still think you will be able to start the sales of the industrialized Ecat or its energy by the end of this year?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 12, 2018 at 10:13 AM
    Albert:
    So far, we are inside the scheduled timing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • nietsnie

    Or there were incidents and he covered them up.

  • Axil Axil

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/17234296/tesla-model-3-robots-production-hell-elon-musk

    Tesla relied on too many robots to build the Model 3, Elon Musk says

    Too much of a good thing sometime is not good

  • sam

    Abd ul-Rahman Lomax on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast

    http://coldfusionnow.org/abd-ul-rahman-lomax-on-the-cold-fusion-now-podcast/

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes. Also takes about deuterium in helium out in palladium systems .

  • sam

    Gerald Belfort
    April 15, 2018 at 5:29 AM
    Dear Andrea:
    Do you suffer of anxiety in this difficult period and, if yes, how do you menage it?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 15, 2018 at 8:17 AM
    Gerald Belfort:
    Yes, I suffer of anxiety: time passes too fast and every hour I calculate if I am in time. Weeks seem to be days, months seem to be weeks, so fast they elapse. I am not managing it, just I have to stand anxiety. The work to do is huge.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Bruce Williams

      Corragio amico Andrea, siamo qui per t’aiutare et sono convinto que tu vincera !! Bravo a te e bravo a Italia !

  • Buck

    The following exchange with Andrea begs the question: which global food companies are headquartered in Chicago?

    Better yet . . . which global companies are headquartered in Chicago?

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

    Daren
    April 17, 2018 at 6:04 AM

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Yesterday a friend of mine has spotted you at the airport of Chicago: was that person really you? Can I ask if your concern or partner is in Chicago?
    __________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    April 17, 2018 at 8:57 AM

    Daren:

    He,he,he…yes, I was in Chicago yesterday to sign a contract.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • sam

      I wonder why A.R. Thinks it is easy to pick which Company
      he is working with?

      • Buck

        I am guessing that things are beginning to pick up for Rossi.

        I don’t think it was lost on him on the incredible coincidence that he should be found and recognized at Chicago’s O’Hare airport on the day he happened to be signing a contract. Like he announced this morning, NDA’s are now part of his business with these industrial companies so he is now simply refusing to reply in the positive or negative.

      • cashmemorz

        If it can be narrowed down as easily as Rossi said and which I did, see my response to Buck above, on Wed., April 18 about 12 noon, then the company is:

        CF Industries Holdings Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
        Agricultural products

  • Buck

    Chicago’s Largest Public Companies:
    LINK>> https://www.luc.edu/law/career/practice_areas/publically_held.html

    The 50 largest publicly traded companies are listed. For the full list, please see the Crain’s Chicago Book of Lists, available in the Office of Career Services.

    Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
    Drugstores, mail-order pharmaceuticals

    Boeing Co. (Chicago, IL)
    Aerospace, defense

    Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Chicago, IL)
    Agricultural products

    Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, IL)
    Construction and mining machinery, heavy trucks

    United Continental Holdings Inc. (Chicago, IL)
    Airline

    Allstate Corp. (Northbrook, IL)
    Property, casualty, and life insurance

    Exelon Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Electricity supplier

    Deere & Co. (Moline, IL)
    Construction and farm machinery, heavy trucks

    Kraft Heinz Co. (Chicago, IL)
    Food processing

    Mondelez International Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
    Snacks, beverages, packaged meals

    Abbvie Inc. (North Chicago, IL)
    Pharmaceuticals, medical products

    McDonald’s Corp. (Oak Brook, IL)
    Fast-food restaurants

    US Foods Holding Corp. (Rosemont, IL)
    Food distribution

    Sears Holdings Corp. (Hoffman Estates, IL)
    Department stores

    Abbott Laboratories (North Chicago, IL)
    Phamaceuticals, medical products

    CDW Corp. (Lincolnshire, IL)
    Computer hardware, software and accessories

    Illinois Tool Works Inc. (Glenview, IL)
    Industrial machinery

    Conagra Brands Inc. (Chicago, IL)
    Packaged foods

    Discover Financial Services (Riverwoods, IL)
    Credit card issuer

    Baxter International Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
    Medical products and services

    W.W. Grainger Inc. (Lake Forest, IL)
    Maintenance equipment and supplies

    CNA Financial Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Property and casualty insurance

    Tenneco Inc. (Lake Forest, IL)
    Auto parts and equipment

    LKQ Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Recycled auto parts

    Navistar International Corp. (Lisle, IL)
    Buses, commercial trucks, military vehicles

    Univar Inc. (Downers Grove, IL)
    Chemicals and allied products distributor

    Anixter International Inc. (Glenview, IL)
    Communications and specialty wire and cable products

    R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. (Chicago, IL)
    Commercial printing

    Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (Chicago, IL)
    Real estate management, development

    Dover Corp. (Downers Grove, IL)
    Manufacturing equipment

    Treehouse Foods, Inc. (Oak Brook, IL)
    Private label food processing

    Motorola Solutions Inc. (Schaumburg, IL)
    Communications

    Ingredion Inc. (Westchester, IL)
    Food and ingredient processor

    Old Republic International Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Insurance holding company

    Packaging Corp. of America (Lake Forest, IL)
    Paper packaging

    Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (Itasca, IL)
    Insurance Brokerage

    Essendant Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
    Office products supplier

    Northern Trust Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Commercial banks

    Telephone & Data Systems Inc. (Chicago, IL)
    Wireless telecommunication services

    Fortune Brands Home & Security Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
    Homebuilding materials

    ULTA Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. (Bolingbrook, IL)
    Beauty products retailer

    NiSource Inc. (Merrillville, IN)
    Natural gas utility

    Brunswick Corp. (Lake Forest, IL)
    Leisure products

    Hyatt Hotels Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Hospitality

    U.S. Cellular Corp. (Chicago, IL)
    Wireless telecommunications services

    Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. (Glenview, IL)
    Infant food products

    CF Industries Holdings Inc. (Deerfield, IL)
    Agricultural products

    LSC Communications Inc. (Chicago, IL)
    Print services

    CME Group Inc. (Chicago, IL)
    Security and commodity brokers

    Zebra Technologies Corp. (Lincolnshire, IL)
    Bar-code printers, related supplies

    • Buck

      Rossi’s response
      ==================================

      Andrea Rossi
      April 17, 2018 at 12:34 PM

      Buck:

      The name is global, but I cannot answer in positive or in negative, because I am under NDA. Obviously with a series of lists, by exclusion, it would be easy to individuate the name.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    • cashmemorz

      Archer Daniels Midland Co./Agricultural products, Kraft Heinz Co./Food processing, Mondelez International Inc./Snacks, beverages, packaged meals, McDonald’s Corp./Fast-food restaurants, Conagra Brands Inc./Packaged foods, Treehouse Foods Inc./Private label food processing, Ingredion Inc./Food and ingredient processor, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co./Infant food products, CF Industries Holdings Inc./Agricultural products.

      These are into food stuffs in one way or another.

      The most likely to use a novel and potenttially dangerous or questionable method to heat food would be those concerned with their own sourced edibles, to avoid potential problems with third party food contamination. Also off the list are childrens or enfant foods to avoid porential problems there.

      That would leave:

      Archer Daniels Midland Co./Agricultural products,
      Kraft Heinz Co./Food processing,
      Mondelez International Inc./Snacks, beverages, packaged meals,
      Conagra Brands Inc./Packaged foods,
      CF Industries Holdings Inc./Agricultural products,

      as those who might get into risky activity.

      Then a study of these most likey to need a lot of cheap heat, their business practices to show who is the greatest risk taker and who might gain the mostby using LENR. The actual one could be just based on who Rossi’s contacts had the most luck in convincing. Agricultural product sounds like something close to animal feeds, and raw farm produce. The reamining are into known people food. That leaves:

      Archer Daniels Midland Co./Agricultural products,
      CF Industries Holdings Inc./Agricultural products

      Raw products are the least costly to try novel experiments on. These are the safest to try an unknown process with minimal problems to be dealt with if anything goes wrong.

      Archer Daniels Midland Co. deals with harvested farm producrs.

      But!
      CF Industries Holdings Inc./Agricultural products. deals with fertilizer, even further removed from direct consumer products. Fertilizer is a chemical that is not a food stuff, but a chemical that is used in the ground, similar to how solids from processed sewage is used as a fertilizer, although a potentially hazardous type of fertilizer, on farm land. This is more in line with what is a very low risk use of a potentially risky process, such as LENR. The end product never gets into the food stream. At least not as directly as using any of the other food processes or products of the other companies on the original list. If anything goes wrong, in the use of LENR, food is never a concern here. At worst, all that would end up is a pile of badly made fertilizer. If anything goes extremely badly, the product can be just burned, similar to fireworks. If radiation is ever a problem, there are ways to deal with that. However, it is only the heat from the LENR device that will be used, even in the processes of making fertilizer. So the ingredients that LENR would ever get into the process is by the indirect route of a heat exchanger before the processes required for making fertilizer ever get close to the LENR device. This kind of customer would be more equiped to deal with any problems in a lowest risk way of dealing with LENR, all of the others.

      If I were Rossi and wanted a lowest risk use of his device in, what he claims is a food industry process(sort of), and needs lots of heat, as fertilizer does, to be made from other ingredients(natural gas and water), this would be the safest bet.

      Look at costs of fertilizer to come down in the next year or two, as sourced from CF Industries Holdings Inc. If the costs do not come down, then the dividends from this company will go up.

      • Buck

        Good perspective . . . and also a excellent example of why an advisor likely prompted Rossi to go down the path of NDA and “neither confirm nor deny”.

  • kasom

    I’d prefer Heinz Kraft because McDonald’s need for heat is too much distributed in thousands of local restaurants and not centralised in any way.

    • Omega Z

      Many of McDonald’s products are pre processed before they are shipped to franchises. However, much of this comes from contracted facilities. It is much more likely that these other contracted entities would be a better bet. These are the entities that also supply business such as Heinz Kraft with product.

      Most of these Big Corporations do little themselves and contract most of their product to smaller entities thus avoiding bottleneck situations should a Union facility go on strike. They can just get product from another vendor without disrupting their business.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Coca-Cola is the biggest food/beverage company operating in Florida,
    where their Minute-Maid orange juice division requires pasteurization.
    ADM (Archer Daniel Midlands) is Chicago’s largest food company, which
    processes and dries a lot of grain and seeds. ADM is also big in ethanol
    production, which would likely take a big hit from E-Cat. A stake in E-Cat
    would provide an excellent hedge against an ethanol downturn.

    • Omega Z

      Ethanol can be produced very cheaply in small quantities. However, this process is not friendly to mass production. Thus, businesses like ADM use a lot of energy to produce these quantities being about 90% of the cost. LENR would make this process nearly as cheap as desalinizing water. It will be a long while before LENR replaces gasohol use. During that time, gasohol will become cheaper and profits margins may/will increase.

      How long would it take to design/engineer LENR powered cars and get them through the regulation process to market.(between 5-20 years). 20 years under present pathway. 5 tears if the government got on board and fast track everything.(Overly Optimistic) Will require at least 10 years minimum. Then add 20 years to replace the current vehicle fleets. ADM will continue to produce Ethanol until the volume is no longer profitable.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

        End the Ethanol Rip-Off
        By Robert Bryce

        March 10, 2015
        Image
        CreditScott Menchin
        WITH the collapse in global oil prices, members of Congress are once again pushing to raise the federal gasoline tax, with the proceeds going to new roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. While some in Congress might be averse to a tax increase of any kind, they might find it more palatable if it came packaged with a tax cut.

        Fortunately, there is a perfect option, a hidden levy that has benefited a small group of farmers and manufacturers in a handful of states: the corn ethanol tax.

        The tax is hidden because, on paper, it appears as a clean-energy mandate. Federal law currently requires fuel retailers to blend about 13 billion gallons of corn ethanol per year into the gasoline they sell to the public, making the gas more expensive. This year, that mandate, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, will impose about $10 billion in additional fuel costs on motorists.

        Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005 with several goals in mind: energy security, rural economic development and environmental protection. But the indirect environmental costs involved, including growing, harvesting and processing corn into fuel, are significant. Ethanol diverts corn from the food supply, driving up food costs; it promotes inefficient and harmful land-use strategies; and it can damage small engines. But a more fundamental problem is its high cost when compared with conventional gasoline. And that higher cost is directly related to its lower energy density.

        ADVERTISEMENT

        Ethanol contains about 76,000 B.T.U.s per gallon. Gasoline contains about 114,000 B.T.U.s per gallon. Therefore, to get the same amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a motorist must buy about 1.5 gallons of ethanol.

        Fueleconomy.gov, a site run by the federal government, advises that vehicles running on the most common form of ethanol-blended fuel, E10 (which contains 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline), will typically get “3 percent to 4 percent fewer miles per gallon” than they would if they were running on pure gasoline. That mileage penalty — in essence, a tax — must be paid at the pump through the purchase of additional fuel.

        And that takes us to the cost issue. Since 1982, officials in Nebraska (which is the second-largest ethanol producer, behind Iowa) have been monitoring monthly and annual wholesale, or “rack,” prices for ethanol and gasoline at fuel depots in Omaha. In December 2014, the rack price of a gallon of ethanol was $2.40, while a gallon of unleaded gasoline was $1.73. But recall that we need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to match the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline. That means you would need to pay about $3.60 to get the same amount of energy as from a gallon of gasoline, making ethanol about twice as expensive.

        That’s not unusual. Since 1982, the price of an energy-equivalent amount of ethanol has, on average, been about 2.4 times the price of gasoline. Furthermore, for eight full years between 1986 and 1998, ethanol cost at least three times more than an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline. In fact, since 1982, ethanol has always been more expensive than gasoline.

        The same energy-equivalent prices allow us to estimate the annual cost of the ethanol tax. Between 2007 and 2014, about 92.5 billion gallons of ethanol were mixed into domestic gasoline supplies. Over that eight-year period, the energy-equivalent cost of ethanol averaged about 90 cents per gallon more than gasoline.

        EDITORS’ PICKS

        The Mets Try the Personal Touch

        Parkland Survivors Get a Broadway Master Class in Healing

        A Thunderous, Lawless, Medieval-Style Horse Race
        ADVERTISEMENT

        Motorists thus incurred about $83 billion — roughly $10 billion annually — in additional fuel costs over and above what they would have paid for gasoline alone.

        The United States now has about 212 million licensed drivers. That means that the ethanol tax is soaking the average driver for an additional $47 per year in excess fuel costs.

        In the last session of Congress, 169 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, urging her to reduce the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline supplies because the mandates could cause “economic and environmental harm.” Nothing came of it.

        The push to end the ethanol tax has continued with the new Congress. Three senators — Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, along with two Republicans, Patrick J. Toomey from Pennsylvania and Jeff Flake from Arizona — have introduced legislation to repeal the ethanol mandate. Their bill is supported by three dozen groups, ranging from industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the National Marine Manufacturers Association to environmental organizations like the Clean Air Task Force and Friends of the Earth.

        Similar moves are afoot in the House, where Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, and three co-sponsors — Steve Womack, a Republican from Arkansas, and two Democrats, Peter Welch of Vermont and Jim Costa of California — are pushing a similar bill. In a statement, Mr. Goodlatte implored his colleagues “to stop this boondoggle.”

        Given the high cost of the ethanol tax, the word “boondoggle” seems too polite. Let’s call it what it is: a rip-off.

        153
        Comments
        The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise.

        Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of a new report from the institute, “The Hidden Corn-Ethanol Tax.”
        https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/end-the-ethanol-rip-off.html

        • Omega Z

          A lot of propaganda…
          ->”Ethanol diverts corn from the food supply.” Probably effects you view on the subject. This is wrong. All that grain is still fed into the food chain. All that grain meal is still fed to livestock with no loss of weight gain per bushel of corn. There’s a reason for this. Corn is very hard to digest and as a rule, 50% of the corn feed to livestock passes through with the excrement. Removing the sugars from the corn requires an emulsifying process. This frees up the proteins to be better digested by livestock thus no net loss of weight gain per bushel of corn.

          ->”it promotes inefficient and harmful land-use strategies” No it doesn’t. The farmers will grow corn just the same(Ethanol or Not) and already use all farmable land suitable for this purpose. As to corn prices, contrary to what’s said, ethanol has no decernable impact on price. The amount of livestock produced(beef, pork, chicken, fish etc…) does have a major impact as that is the main use of corn and demand.

          Ethanol production can also make use of corn that is tainted by bacteria & mold that normally needs to be buried in land fill or burnt. Much of that corn as grain meal(unfit for man or beast) can go now go back into the livestock food chain which has the effect of reducing corn price.

          Ethanol is a very effective octane booster used in gasoline and presently the only economical replacement of (MTBE). Ethanol has an octane rating of 100, but when blended with gasoline can have an octane rating of up to 112 if they so choose.

          Gasoline=114000 Btu’s per gallon. Gasohol=110200 Btu’s per gallon. A 3800 BTU difference. Gasohol also burns much cleaner and efficiently. In the real world, the difference in mpg is negligible. My personal experience, I actually obtained 1/4 to half mile more per mpg, but that falls into the background noise so I call it a wash.

          Gasohol also extends the life of an engine by at least 25%. You should see 2 engines with similar mileage dismantled. It’s night and day difference in condition. Today, you only need to tune up and change spark plugs every 60/70K miles instead of 15K or so. Spark plugs haven’t changed. This is mostly due to the use of gasohol and overall saves you 1000’s of dollars over the life of the engine. Most mechanical problems today concern faulty electronics(sensors etc) then the engine itself and the computer diagnostics are often wrong. A lot of guess work involved here. Thus your repair bill shows multiple components changed out.

          Do you know the difference between $60bbl and $100bbl oil. About 1%. If demand exceeds supply by about 1% is all it takes to see $100 or more in oil price. If the U.S. replaces that ethanol with additional oil, those parameters will be met. You’ll pay at least a dollar more per gallon. They would also need to use MTBE’s to provide that octane boost which is only slightly cheaper then ethanol at the pump. And it’s nasty stuff. Also, that oil price increase will cost the farmers about a dollar more per bushel in production cost. Farming is extremely marginal for profit. In any given year, 50% of farmers lose money.

          The Government’s real emphasis for pushing Ethanol has nothing to do with the farmer. That’s a false narrative. They have been quietly eliminating the use of Methyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE) of which the EPA pushed in the phase out of leaded gasoline in the 70’s. (MTBE) turned out to be nasty stuff. Even breathing it can cause serious health issues when filling the tank. Even as this became well known, the EPA refused for years to consider it’s discontinuation. Only in the late 90’s did they change tack after several states had all ready banned it..

          Interesting facts.
          When the price of corn drops to low, a number of farmers will burn their corn for home and shop heating. They use corn heater systems better known today as wood pellet stove heaters. Compare 400K BTU corn-$3.80. Propane-$9.60, heating oil-$7.50

          ICE engine burning 95% Ethanol- 5% water has 10-15% more power and mileage improvement over gasoline.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Federal Subsidies for Corn Ethanol and Other Corn-Based Biofuels
      Energy & Natural Resources | Research & Analysis
      Dec 1, 2017 | 31 min read | Print Article
      Since the creation of the domestic market for corn ethanol after the energy crisis of the 1970s, the federal government has nurtured and maintained the ethanol industry with a steady stream of subsidies. Originally sold as a way to achieve energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ethanol has been a favorite of many lawmakers: ethanol producers have received favorable treatment under the tax code, tariff protection from foreign competition, and even a government mandate for its use. As a result, taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment.

      To start, the farm bill, a massive piece of legislation covering topics ranging from nutrition assistance to broadband internet, provides government subsidies for the now-mature ethanol industry, including corporate agribusiness giants such as Archer Daniels Midland. The majority of support for corn ethanol in the farm bill has come from energy title programs such as the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, trade programs such as the Market Access Program, and other commodity and crop insurance supports for corn and ethanol blender pumps. While the Rural Energy for America Program also provided subsidies for ethanol blender pumps beginning in 2011, such support was prohibited in the 2014 farm bill. In May 2015, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) once again announced additional support for blender pumps through the Commodity Credit Corporation, a fund typically reserved for farm loans and other major farm subsidy programs.[1]

      Subsidies for corn-based biofuels also litter the tax code – including tax breaks for biodiesel derived from corn oil and blender pumps which dispense higher blends of ethanol – in addition to Department of Energy programs and other subsidies scattered throughout the federal government such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate for the use of corn ethanol administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Later this year, Congress will consider whether to extend tax breaks including the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit, which provides a 30 percent tax break for gasoline stations or other facilities installing biodiesel or 85 percent ethanol (E85) blender pumps, in addition to others that prop up corn-based biofuels industries. While the credit expired at the end of 2016, Congress has routinely extended it retroactively. Time will tell to see if comprehensive tax reform efforts eliminate wasteful subsidies such as these that have propped up the mature corn ethanol industry for decades. It is time the industry stood on its two feet, particularly given our nation’s $20 trillion debt.

      Other Federal Supports for Corn Ethanol

      In addition to the numerous special-interest supports corn ethanol has received over the years, including tax breaks, an import tariff, and infrastructure subsidies, a federal production mandate – the RFS – also heavily benefits corn ethanol. The maze of historic subsidies for corn ethanol has allowed the federal government to pick winners and losers, distort energy and agriculture markets, and contributed to expansion and overproduction of corn and ethanol in the industry. Thankfully, the tariff and $6 billion-per-year tax credit (known as VEETC) were forced into retirement at the end of 2011.

      However, the RFS mandate still requires oil and gas companies to blend increasing amounts of biofuels with gasoline each year through 2022, and corn ethanol comprises a majority (78 percent) of the mandate.[2] While the mandate was intended to significantly reduce GHG emissions and spur the development of biofuels derived from non-food crops (within the advanced and cellulosic biofuel categories), the RFS has failed to meet its goals. Mandates for cellulosic ethanol have been waived more than 90 percent due to low production levels (see Figure 1 for differences between levels set in law in 2007 vs. final renewable volume obligations – RVOs – set by EPA). While cellulosic biofuels were intended to be derived from non-food/feed crops, corn kernel fiber ethanol has recently qualified for the RFS as a cellulosic biofuel. Instead of using the inedible stalks or cobs for an ethanol feedstock, this pathway utilizes portions of the corn kernel that would otherwise be used as animal feed, again creating competition with food and feed crops. To make matters worse, EPA approved the use of a higher blend of ethanol (moving from E10 to E15) for vehicles manufactured after 2001 allowing more corn ethanol into the market despite concerns about damage to small engines, increased taxpayer costs for blender pumps to dispense these higher blends, etc. Coupled with EPA’s recent approval of corn butanol from Gevo’s Luverne, Minnesota, facility as an “advanced biofuel”[3] (again which uses corn kernels), the RFS as a whole has primarily been a mandate for more corn-based biofuels. The mandate has therefore created numerous unintended consequences such as higher food prices and greater – instead of lower – GHG emissions.[4] Unless Congress addresses the federal mandate, it will continue to burden taxpayers and do more harm than good.

      Corn Ethanol Supports in the Farm Bill

      Realizing that the corn ethanol industry had already received its fair share of federal handouts, Congress prohibited corn starch ethanol from qualifying for new energy title spending in the 2008 farm bill, which was reauthorized in 2014. The intent was to allow the next generation of biofuels (advanced fuels made from non-food sources like agricultural residues, wood waste, and perennial grasses) to receive a greater share of grants, loan guarantees, and other subsidies. But despite corn ethanol facilities being prohibited from receiving energy title funding, at least four of the 15 programs allowed nearly $100 million dollars to be spent (or potentially promised as loan guarantees) for corn-based biofuels from 2009 to 2017.

      As an example of the persistence of subsidies flowing to the industry, corn ethanol producers avoided the prohibitions on corn starch ethanol funding by convincing USDA to add ethanol blender pumps to its list of projects eligible for energy funding in the farm bill (specifically through the Rural Energy for America Program – REAP), even though Congress never authorized this controversial use of taxpayer dollars. Before this practice ended in Feb. 2014, millions of dollars were squandered on the mature corn ethanol industry. Nevertheless, in May 2015, USDA once again announced new funding for blender pumps through a different USDA spending account – the Commodity Credit Corporation.[5] Recipients continue to circumvent other energy title program eligibility rules by refining biofuels from corn oil instead of corn starch, producing fuels like butanol and biodiesel instead of ethanol, and receiving energy efficiency upgrade subsidies to retrofit corn ethanol facilities (see Tables 2 and 3 in the next sections for more information).

      Farm bill programs supporting corn-based biofuels, in addition to other forms of renewable energy, are listed in Table 1 below. Four programs subsidize corn-based biofuels in the farm bill’s energy title, while other programs subsidize ethanol through the trade and commodity titles of the farm bill (more specifically, the promotion of ethanol exports through USDA’s Market Access Program and the installation of ethanol blender pumps through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation). As of 2014, USDA announced that ethanol exports may be promoted through MAP. According to the U.S. Grains Council, at least 3 recent trade missions to the Philippines, Latin America, Japan, and Korea promoted U.S. ethanol exports.[6]

      Table 1: Corn Ethanol Subsidies in the Farm Bill Energy, Trade, and Commodity Titles
      Farm Bill Section Program/fund name Description Corn-based biofuels projects receiving funding Funding for corn-based biofuels from 2009 to 2017
      Energy Title Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (more info in Table 3 below) Payments to advanced biofuels facilities to expand annual production 1 corn oil biodiesel facility and several corn ethanol facilities, presumably because some also use milo (in addition to corn) as a feedstock in the refining process. $60 million (grants and loans)
      Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program Grants and loan guarantees for advanced biofuels and heat and power facilities SoyMor, a facility using corn and soybean oil for biodiesel production, received a conditional loan guarantee in 2009. $25 million (conditional loan guarantee)
      Repowering Assistance Program Reimbursements for biorefineries to replace fossil fuel power sources with biomass (like wood chips, municipal solid waste, or perennial grasses) Two corn ethanol facilities received taxpayer funding to replace natural gas and fossil energy with a biomass boiler and a biogas digester. $6.9 million (reimbursement payments)
      Rural Energy for America Program (more info in Table 2 below) Intended to subsidize solar, wind, hydropower, energy efficiency, and other renewable energy projects 10 corn ethanol facilities received grants/loans to install “energy efficiency” upgrades and retrofit equipment, in addition to 2011-2014 subsidies for new ethanol blender pumps and other special fueling infrastructure. $5.7 million spent on corn ethanol facilities and ethanol blender pumps
      Trade Title Market Access Program Market trade promotion program designed to expand agricultural exports, including corn ethanol In FY17, the U.S. Grains Council received $6,670,888 for its overall trade missions, but the amount spent on ethanol specifically is unknown.[7] The Council notes that the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy also accompanied it on ethanol trade missions, but these 2 organizations aren’t direct recipients of MAP subsidies.[8] Unknown
      Commodity Title Commodity Credit Corporation Traditionally a fund reserved to pay out farm subsidies and farm loans, USDA proposed also using CCC funds to subsidize ethanol In May 2015, USDA announced CCC funding for ethanol blender pumps, which primarily benefit corn ethanol. $100 million allocated in 2015[9]
      * Note that until enactment of the farm bill in Feb. 2014, the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) also provided $3.3 million in subsidies for fuel pumps dispensing corn ethanol even though the program was designed to fund grants and loan guarantees for rural energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, including solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass.
      Corn-Based Biofuel Subsidies in the Rural Energy for America (REAP) Program

      Aside from blender pump subsidies that were funded through USDA’s REAP program from 2011-2014, REAP also continues to subsidize corn ethanol facilities even though the farm bill energy title is meant to spur development of non-food-based bioenergy sources. Several subsidies were announced as recently as Oct. 2016 even though REAP was specifically designed to help rural small businesses install wind, solar, energy efficiency, and other renewable energy systems.[10]

      Table 2: REAP Subsidies for Corn Ethanol Facilities, Nov. 2010 to Oct. 2016
      State Recipient Project Description (or none provided by USDA if blank) Jan. 2011
      Amount Oct. 2015 Amount Oct. 2016 Amount
      MN DENCO II, LLC Ethanol production $50,000
      NJ East Coast Energy Solutions Ethanol biorefinery with 5 MW CHP using natural gas. $47,500
      NE Mid America Agri Products/Wheatland LLC $500,000
      IA Golden Grain Energy $250,000
      NE Siouxland Ethanol LLC To purchase and install the equipment for the retrofitting of an ethanol facility. $500,000
      WI Badger State Ethanol LLC To purchase and install the equipment for the retrofitting of an ethanol facility. $492,327
      MN Chippewa Valley Ethanol Cooperative LLP To make energy efficiency improvements with the evaporator of an ethanol refinery. $250,000
      IA Little Sioux Corn Processors LLC To make energy efficiency improvements with the retrofitting of an ethanol refinery. $165,000
      IA Siouxland Energy Cooperative To make energy efficiency improvements with the retrofitting of an ethanol refinery. $165,000
      IL Lincolnland Agri-Energy LLC To purchase and install a fermenter for ethanol production. $77,984
      Corn-Based Biofuel Subsidies in the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels

      RELATED ARTICLE
      Comments to the Bureau of Land Management on the Delay of the Methane Waste Rule
      Similar to REAP, the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (BPAB) has also subsidized the mature corn ethanol industry despite the program’s title which implies support for advanced biofuels derived from non-food-based feedstocks, not to mention the energy title’s prohibition on subsidies for corn-starch-based ethanol. Facilities are presumably applying for this program’s payments since they may also produce ethanol from milo in addition to corn. Table 3 includes recent BPAB subsidy payments to corn-based biofuel facilities, primarily those producing corn ethanol.

  • Buck

    Bfast,
    there is a missing accent on the “o” in illumino. So google, with the accent now shows a translation of “he enlightened me at the table”

    • Emilio

      He, Ungaretti, was there in the mountains in ww1. Blood, fear, mud. But that was such a gorgeus morning that He felt like He was enlightened by the entire universe (immense, if exists)

      M’illumino d’immenso

  • Jas

    Lets look at this from another angle. Perhaps there is a company in Chicago that provide field rations for US troops? The Quark X is minute and extremely low cost for the military budgets. It could be incorporated into a ready meal that can be cooked out in the arena of battle,without the need for portable cooking equipment, and disposed of after. What better boost to morale than hot food in a soldiers stomach whilst out on patrol in hostile enviroments. Does this sound crazy? Tell me if this is far fetched.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi reactor will have zero contact with said food. Only heated water. People need to grow up and grow a pair. If some people had their way, they likely wouldn’t have any food to eat at all. And this involves processes that’s been in use for centuries.

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