E-Cat to Hydrocarbons?

There has been some discussion over on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the use of E-Cat technology for transportation with Steven Karels suggesting using the E-Cat for the production of electricity or hydrogen, and Pekka Janhunen proposing liquid hydrogen vehicles:

. . . with a small continuously running E-cat which runs a cryocooler which keeps the LH2 in its liquid state. LH2 is safer to store than gaseous hydrogen and needs less tankage mass (indeed, LH2 is routinely transported by trucks on normal roads). LH2 takes somewhat more energy to produce than GH2, but with cheap E-cat produced grid electricity that wouldn’t be an issue.

In a comment here on ECW on the Always Open thread, Tpaign made an interesting comment that I hadn’t really considered before, and which I think is worth repeating here in its entirety.

It will be much more likely that we would see LENR used to create synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, and we would continue to primarily use internal combustion engines to power our cars.

Gasoline, diesel (and even alcohols) are valued mostly for their unique combination of three factors; availability, high energy density, and relative safety.

Assuming LENR works (i.e. cheap & abundant heat is available), combining CO2 + H2O + heat to manufacture synthetic methanol and gasoline is actually a pretty easy process. Also, this process for fuels becomes a carbon neutral exercise, and brings an alternative meaning to the term “carbon cycle”.

Most people have a hard time understanding that gasoline is actually a type of battery. If it gets manufactured as I described above, it will be far greener that any other type of battery currently made.

One obvious benefit of creating synthetic hydrocarbons would be the ability for it to be used in the millions of existing vehicles on the road, and dispensed at the existing filling-station infrastructure already in place throughout the world. I am assuming that the ‘pretty easy process’ of making synthetic methanol and gasoline would involve extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, turning it into fuel, and sending it back to the atmosphere upon combustion — which would indeed be carbon neutral.

The idea of using the E-Cat to make a liquid hydrocarbon battery sounds like a very neat idea to me that would not involve any of the dreaded certification issues that Andrea Rossi thinks is going to keep the E-Cat from being used as a transportation solution for a long time, since you would not need to have an on-board reactor.

  • GreenWin

    Speaking of hydrocarbons, there is renewed divestment of International Oil Companies oil field assets: http://businessdayonline.com/2013/10/renewed-divestment-by-iocs-highlights-troubled-industry/

  • ecatworld

    From the JONP today:

    Steven N. Karels

    October 30th, 2013 at 5:34 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There was a posting on eCat world about using eCat technology to generate synthetic fuels from coal, natural gas, etc. It seems the process requires temperatures in the 350C area so it initially looks like a promising technology. But the history of commercial synthetic fuel generation is littered with broken corporations as the price of oil fluxuates.

    But it might be a possible eCat use. Any opinion on LENR in general as the heat source for synthetic fuel generation?

    Andrea Rossi

    October 30th, 2013 at 6:02 PM

    Steven N Karels:
    Yes, I think LENR can be a source of energy competitive for the production of alternative fuels.
    Warm Regards,

  • Jim

    Although having a fuel battery where the e-cat creates energy that is stored as hydrogen could work, I suspect a more immediate use for the e-cat would be to generate hydrogen and convert it to gasoline for sale to gas stations.

    I suspect it would be far cheaper per gallon than the current $3.50 around my area.

    Considering that someone has already created a process to generate gasoline from hydrogen, this would simply be a matter of getting a few e-cats and setting up a plant. And the nice thing about this over a solar farm is that additional capacity can easily be added by adding more e-cats and more storage tanks. A gasoline generating plant using the e-cat could be far smaller, and generate just as much gasoline, as one of the current plants that process oil to get gasoline.

  • Omega Z

    E-cats if all that Rossi claims is far from being useful for
    transportation at this time. In the mid term the best we can hope for is
    the electric car will be plugged into an outlet fed by E-cat Electric.
    Even that is still in question. Highly efficient batteries at present
    will require resources that are presently in short supply. Cheaper
    batteries lack the efficiencies.

    The Achilles heel of the Tesla is batteries. Have a wreck, burn a car.

    Hydrogen is efficient in liquid form as in 1 gal. equivalent to 4 gal.
    of gasoline used in combustion. Today’s engines wont cut it. Burns to hot. Would require a new car. The
    infrastructures not available. But it’s also problematic in a safety
    manor. Explosive. That & the Jerks who want to blow things up.

    Present Fuel cells wont cut it. Many problems yet to overcome not to
    mention the cost. The most efficient also require resources that are

    Thermal Electric convertors are way to inefficient at this time. Likely
    couldn’t produce enough electricity to operate the E-cat itself although
    I think this could eventually change.

    Steam drive has it’s own problems. In the past, safety issues were
    tolerated, but today, probably not. Therefore, the cost of making them
    safe enough to pass muster in mass would make them very expensive. Add
    that it would likely require a closed system & additional hardware
    for this? NOTE: Today’s cars aren’t the days of old steam cars. Bigger heavier to start with lots of new safety gizmo’s that require electric. Also, it is highly probable that E-cats would need to be at
    least 70Kw or more. A 10Kw would never work & this would suffice
    only in cars. Big rigs, heavy machinery Etc, would still need
    conventional fuels for decades.

    All the above is possible, But all are problematic. New materials or
    breakthrough technologies will be needed to be of real benefit. There is
    a limited market for 1/2 million dollar cars. OK, maybe a little
    exaggerated but the point is valid. Also, people are resistant to change overall. You need to prove to them that it’s just as convenient or more so then the existing Tech before the will go for it. And Cheaper. People are already resistant to a 20 minute charge cycle at a charging station.

    Producing synfuel actually makes sense in the intermediate phase. Likely
    a couple decades. Most of the infrastructure already exists. Refineries
    could be reconfigured. The Additional adaptive costs would be offset by the cost
    of future Oil Rig structures that wont be needed or built. A single Well runs well into the 10’s of millions each or even more.

    Regardless which route they take, It’s going to take several decades
    just to replace conventional power plants & additional power plant
    demand let alone transportation needs.

    Maybe by that time, LENR technology will advance to where it is a better fit for transportation.
    Maybe the direct electric conversion phenomenon can be mastered. If that’s possible. At the moment it is just an interesting phenomenon. Is it a momentary effect or something that can be stable & harnessed???

    • US_Citizen71

      I agree with you for the most part. Electric cars could be going today lead sulfide batteries are cheap, recharge quickly, have no memory, store charged for extended periods of time, don’t require exotic materials and the electrolyte can be used as fertilizer. We just have to come to the realization that 95% of the time we do not need a vehicle with a 500 mile range.

      • Omega Z

        Doesn’t matter what people need.
        What they think they need is important if you want the masses to get on board.

        It’s going to take 200 mile range to have a major impact. Then only as a 2nd vehicle. But then that’s a lot of cars in itself. I know many people that 100 miles is just unacceptable. They drive that much just to & from work everyday & allows no acceptable margin of error.

        I think if you want to replace both primary & secondary cars for the majority is going to require 300 to 400 mile range. This is going to require a major technology boost in batteries. Major as in Range, safe, longevity & fast charge-ability, Oh and convenient. We aren’t there yet.

        Aside from 200 mile range, People want their tunes, Wipers, A/C, heat/defrost & batteries that don’t quit because it’s to hot or cold. We tend to forget details as such in general. Makes a big difference.

        Note: My girlfriend has become accustomed to having a heated seat.
        I offered her an alternative, but alas, Her humor mode wasn’t engaged. 🙂

        • US_Citizen71

          I actually meant Lead Silicon batteries not lead sulfide. Fingers not in sync with the brain. They cover most of what is needed for an EV with a 40% higher energy density than lead acid.

          From http://www.siliconebatteries.ca/
          “Breaking away from the technological limits of the lead-acid battery, the silicone rechargeable power battery embraces the breakthrough of the silicate salt composite electrolyte. Silicone batteries are a specialized battery with enormous trusted durable power universally recognized of having a cutting edge over the commonly used lead-acid battery. Silicone Batteries have charging capability to be charged at 150amps in 22 minutes and discharge capability at 30C in 8 seconds with no damage to the battery. Furthermore, silicone batteries have a higher capacity, high current output, low internal resistance during discharging with no visible temperature rise. Silicone batteries work normal in low and high temperatures of -50°C to +70°C with a long cycle lifespan of up to 10 years with no acid or corrosion to impact the environment.”

          I’ve been looking at purchasing an electric motorcycle as my commute is only about 4 miles one way and the cycles using the lead silicon are far cheaper to purchase than lithium ion. We are getting there but I agree the ultimate EV battery isn’t in production yet.

          • Omega Z

            “Fingers not in sync with the brain”

            Huh. I Don’t understand? No one else here EVER has that Problem. 🙂

            Yep, Sometimes I forget to engage brain before fingers…

    • GreenWin

      While there have been two Tesla car wrecks, both drivers walked away. “Consumer Reports just published its review of the 2013 Tesla Model S, and it gave the electric car a 99 out of 100 — higher than any other car it has tested.”


      According to CR, this is the safest car ever built.

      • Omega Z

        I agree GreenWin. Overall a great car.

        I was just pointing out the “Achilles heel of the Tesla is batteries”
        I also give them high marks for their efforts to compartmentalize the batteries. This probably had a lot to do with the guy walking away from the crash.
        One concern though is when I talk to my insurance agent about insuring 1 of these electric cars and the response from my agent goes-” Well, If you have to ask” 🙁

        You know as well as I, that they are making some good gains in battery tech that will be available in a couple years, BUT, I have yet to see 1 that makes me go “AHA! That’;s it.” So far all I can say is That’s good.

        I think you & I are on the same page in many respects, Such as what we think we know at this time is a perfect fit for a local micro-grid & eventually in home CHIP systems, But I think those will require some-type/scale of batteries in home to make total off grid work. Time will tell.

        I compare today’s E-cat to the 1st home kit computer with a basic processor & 128 bytes of memory. Today we have home computers more powerful the 60’s mainframes.

  • purplepartyguy

    what about the idea of using steam as the primary motive force? A pressure boiler could store additional steam for high load conditions. Advanced steam engines were getting 10 miles to the gallon of water with condensors.

  • joker

    Holy smokes….
    First of all, converting energy from one form into another costs overall efficiency (losses along the way). It also takes equipment which costs money, occupies space, adds weight and decreases overall system reliability.
    Creating hydrocarbons by using LENR to burn in an engine is akin to these overly complex mouse-trap contraptions that you sometimes see in cartoons. Why would you pay for all that equipment? It’s just stupid.
    Secondly, there are better ways to run motors/engines with LENR than by the use of hydrocarbons or hydrogen. In fact with that last one….you’d be better off owning a pack-mule.

    Turbine engines (jets) need a source of heat i.e. a combustor, to heat up compressed air to ultimately generate thrust. Ditch the combustor, use a hot E-Cat. Done.
    Cars need a source of torque to move. Electric motors are beautiful at providing that. You can just use an e-cat coupled to a thermoelectric generator to charge a battery (continuously, because why not?), and run your electric motor off that. Virtually no moving parts other than the motor in that setup.
    Alternatively use a LENR to run a small but high-rpm gas turbine (working fluid doesn’t have to be air) to generate torque (trucks, locomotives?). These kinds of systems would work anywhere, anytime, even at the bottom of a lake. I mean that concept has been around since the 50’s except the source of heat is a very nasty, glowing reactor. Right?

    Hydrogen fuel-cells are a total joke. Good to run in a controlled environment but their energy and power density is pathetic, they freeze up in winter and have a host of other practical problems that make them only useful in things like manned space-craft and pretty much nowhere else where cost matters. Remember they were invented in 1830’s and almost 200 years later are still basically just a laboratory curiosity for a reason. They suck.

    Turning to hydrogen as a ‘fuel’……well….it ain’t really a fuel, it’s a very expensive high maintenance, bulky battery system. Very low energy density per unit of volume, although good per unit of weight, so use it if you are going up in space at $10,000 per-pound-of-cargo, by all means that is if you don’t have a LENR handy to use instead.
    Hydrogen, whether used in a fuel-cell or a combustor of some type, still needs to be either stored (not really mobile unless you want to tow a trailer behind your car) or produced on the spot, but as is the case with fuel cells, why would you want to use a LENR to produce heat to produce electricity to produce hydrogen to produce electricity (or heat) to run a motor?

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    Making H2 and after that LH2 is very inefficient for combustion motor usage. Total efficiency will be less than 20%. Much better is to use the magnetic behaviour of LENR to directly generate electricity and drive an E-motor or use a high temperature LENR device (>2000 centigrade) to split water into H and O2 and use both gasses in a fuel cell to drive the E-motor.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      With almost free energy, efficiency is irrelevant.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        That’s a purely economical answer. If we would waste most of our ‘free’ energy in the future, I am sure the Earth would heat up unnecessarily and make living impossible for future generations. I believe we should always use energy carefully.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          So your solution, no doubt, is strict regulation. In the hands of regulators, LENR will be lucky to ever see large scale use, because the regulators are regulated by the status quo.

          • Marc Ellenbroek

            I agree it is very difficult for a regulator to react before something exists. However if you look to the car market, then you see that economical measures (taxes) to control things works (slowly): Cars, even in the US, have become more fuel efficient lately.

            • Iggy Dalrymple

              Never mind what the citizens want. Big Bro knows best.

    • Omega Z

      E-cats are limited to 1455`C Max. Likely less then that for operation reasons. To exceed that kills the cat. The Nickel melts.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        True, when we get the grips of LENR and understand how it exactly works we may be able to reach much higher temperatures. Maybe wolfram or ceramic LENRs can be made. In the short term I would surely investigate direct generation of electricity using the high magnetic pulses that are observed in Ecad and Hyperion LENR devices. I guess that these pulses play a role in the self-sustaining and run-away situations of the LENR process. By controlled energy extraction of these pulses, you may be able to better control the LENR process at higher temperatures.

  • LENR4you

    Interesting article:
    Efforts to explain low-energy nuclear reactions
    Naturwissenschaften The Science of Nature © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

  • bitplayer
    • GreenWin

      Thanks for this bit… Looks like a reply to Kirvit’s confused “critique” letter earlier this year. Value comes from a thorough review of the data:

      “…over 16 independent studies using numerous samples found that helium was present when energy production was detected and some measurements found no helium when no extra energy was detected. Three independent studies
      measured the energy/He ratio, which can be summarized as 25 ± 5 MeV/He.”

      He4 in particular is widely accepted as a product confirming a nuclear reaction of some kind. In the case of LENR – it remains an unknown reaction.

      • GreenWin

        Ooops. Meant as reply to LENR4you.

  • GreenWin

    Combustion of matter in any phase for light transportation is outdated and unnecessary. Sales of hybrid and ZEV vehicles prove this daily. Tesla’s Model S is the technology leader and their SUV will cost half of the S. Further indication of automobile trends is found in the US-Canadian Northwest alliance to “combat climate” (sorry Iggy) by promoting ZEV adoption. Whatever face-save name they call it, Li-Ion batteries are safe and in use by nearly every major automaker.


    Tesla’s Supercharger network already provides free energy. Owners can drive US coast to coast at ZERO cost for energy.

    OT: If politicians really want to “fight climate change” they should put on boxing gloves and madly punch at the air!

  • bfast

    I have considered this question a lot since the 2011 e-cat announcement. I have come to the clear conclusion that fuel is obsolete in an LENR world, even in transportation.

    1 – The power to weight and power to size density of LENR far exceeds that of gasoline or any liquid fuel. An e-cat unit the size and weight of my car’s gas tank can produce at least1 MW of heat continuously for months. (Enough to convert to energy and drive a semi)
    2 – The systems necessary to convert the heat to electricity, such as a steam engine/generator pair, are about half the weight of a car’s transmission — let alone the engine.

    So in any sense of “the long run”, why wouldn’t we just put an e-cat into our car, and generate electricity with a steam or stirling generator? There is one issue that makes this difficult — the slow startup, shutdown time of the e-cat. This, of course can be rectified with a good battery pack. Another option is to keep the e-cat running, and just blow off the steam. However the other competitors, Defkallion and Bourillion both claim engines that are extremely dynamic. So even a battery pack is unnecessary.

    • E_man

      “why wouldn’t we just put an e-cat into our car” ??
      In spite of all my effort I really can not buy it !!!

    • Job001

      Ecat controls may not function properly with shake, rattle, and roll, normal for automobiles, Ecat automobile engineering is another ballgame. Also, a car is not a great situation for boiler safety.

      However, IF(BIG IF) the Ecat can produces controllably under shake rattle and roll conditions at a sufficiently high temperature and IF(BIG IF)thermoelectric converters are sufficiently cheap and efficient then some net power over the required feedback may result in a workable safe system.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Summary of the possibilities:
    (1) Hydrocarbon. Problem: where to get the carbon from. Getting it from atmospheric CO2 is not easy, even if cheap energy is available.
    (2) Hydrogen. Many technical issues. But if hydrogen is employed, then LH2 is safer and more lightweight than GH2.
    (3) Ammonia. Problem: toxic. In other respects perfect and 60-year old tech. Internal combustion engines can run with NH3 with small modifications. Could be mixed with hydrocarbons in transition period.
    (4) Electric car. Problem: battery is heavy, expensive and may have safety concerns.
    (5) Direct E-cat powered car. Problems: Needs fundamental new developments since present E-cat cannot be throttled rapidly; certification.

    If E-cat comes, hydrocarbon prices drop so conventional cars remain economical for a while and selection of the “final” car tech can wait for some years.

    • Asterix

      Don’t we, in fact, get all of our hydrocarbon fuels ultimately from atmospheric CO2? It may have taken many millions of years, but that black goo used to be plants at one time.

      So, if one wants to be trite, all we need do is to speed up the process a few hundred million times. Super-kudzu anyone?

  • US_Citizen71

    The technology to this is not new, both the British and Germans used it to a very limited degree during WWII due to limited refinery capabilities and sources of petroleum. They did the process with coal and peat. The problem is efficiency. It is approximately 20 to 1 energy in to energy out. To put numbers to it you need to input 700kwh in to get the 35kwh that a gallon of gasoline represents. If you used solar and had a square field of panels with 20% efficiency 100 meters by 100 meters on a hillside it would only produce a little less than 3 gallons of gasoline per hour. You need something like an ECat to make it feasible.

  • HHiram

    Using hydrogen as an energy carrier is a terrible idea. It just has too many disadvantages.

    – You have to compress or freeze hydrogen to get it to a useful density – both waste energy, and can be dangerous.
    – Hydrogen is extremely corrosive, so you need very special equipment to store and pump it, and burning it in a combustion engine will ruin the engine very quickly.
    – Hydrogen leaks more than any other gas or fluid (it is only protons, after all), so there are heavy losses.

    It would be much better to use LENR to make methane (CH4, aka “natural gas”) instead. Methane has none of these disadvantages, plus all of the advantages of hydrogen (clean burning, non-toxic, etc.), plus the additional advantages of massive worldwide infrastructure and machines already in place to use it.

    • GreenWin

      Well put HH. And it would be fascinating to see a CH4-regulated E-Cat (replacing the mains resistance heating.) This would allow an alliance between gas companies and E-Cat distributed CHP systems on residential and district levels. We may discover that the magnetic anomaly obviates any thermal to work conversion – cleaner and far less mechanical.

    • Warthog

      This comes up any time hydrogen is mentioned, and is (let us say)…baloney. Hydrogen is used daily all over the US, in quantities both small and large, safely. There are dedicated pipelines carrying only hydrogen between plants. Once upon a time, the same “unsafe” label was affixed to “gasoline”.

      As to hydrogen being “corrosive”, that is simply wrong (I’m a chemist). You “might” be confusing hydrogen’s reputation for “hydrogen embrittlement” with corrosivity, but even that effect is grossly exaggerated.

      And hydrogen has been used in normal combustion engines with zero problems many, many, many times. All that is needed is to change the size of the fuel jet (in carbureted engines) to get the correct fuel/air ratio.

  • AlainCo

    note that the quantify of hydrogen consumed is ridiculous… like is the nickel consumed.
    the complication of LH2 seems useless…

    making synthetic fuel can help during the transition… like also LENR which can help extracting oil, shale oild, tars… anyway, LENr car will have success.

    Unlike electricity or H2 cars, or even gasoline car, LENR cars need no infrastructure. no charging plug, no refill pump… just going to the garage every few month to oil and refill, like for the AC or the engine itself…

    I feel that LENr car can capture the market much more quickly than what we imagine, it is not a change or an increase of constraint, it is a removal of constraint.

    LENR may also be appreciated in place were fuel is hard to transport or find, in islands, in poor unregulated countries, in crowded emerging countries…

  • bachcole

    The hydrocarbon “battery” may be for the short term, but I guarantee that in 100 years NO ONE will have such batteries. I think that most of this kind of talk is the result of us seeing low COPs, certification issues, slow turn-ons, and such. All of these problems will eventually be fixed. It is just a matter of time and engineering.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe Rossi could use Lonnie Johnson’s thermoelectric
    generator to directly convert heat into electricity. (And have the option of
    using the electricity to make hydrogen from water.).


    • Paul Smith

      It is rather old (2008). Where is now that device?

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        You must send in box-top from your Super-Soaker.

      • Omega Z

        Where is it at?

        Material Science.
        You have materials that provide the proper function, but can’t handle the heat.
        You have materials that can handle the heat but doesn’t provide the proper functions.
        It’s a slow process to get where they need to be. There progressing but very slowly.

        On the Upside, If they get where they want, At 1000`C like the HT-Cat is capable of, they think eventually it could be 60% to 70% efficient. It has zero moving parts. One article I read indicated it may be capable of 90% to 95% Carnot efficiency eventually.
        I believe 1 of their backers is XEROX V.C.

        I wonder with all the advances in 3-D printing if this wouldn’t be just the tool for the job. It would definitely put it in the reasonable cost range. I Believe NASA produced a throttle body of some sort that had to withstand 3000`F. That’s about 1650`C.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Found an update. He talks about the JTEC at about 19:00 (but
        the whole talk is interesting). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I256LaAI14

  • Gordon Docherty

    Whatever “fuel” is synthesized, the important point is that this synthesis should be (more or less) Just In Time. That way, storage of explosive liquids / gases can be kept to an absolute minimum, with “fuel” tanks now being full of water – also useful if you crash in a desert: lots of water to drink and wash wounds with until the emergency services arrive! Of course, doing away with the CO2 makes for engines without the need to breathe. So, now, with the same hybrid engine, you can have electric motor (to turn fans etc), synthetic fuel burner using CO2 from the atmosphere and then pure 2 x H2 + O2 for high altitudes / performance. Using 2 x H2 + O2 also gets rid of the problem of trying to “breathe in” air at high speeds… (though a designer could also build in a SCRAM jet to get 4 in 1!) The point is, companies such as Jet Engine companies should be thinking of doing this no, if they want to still be in business in 10 or 20 years time…

    • Gordon Docherty

      “doing this no” should be “doing this now” of course

  • lucida

    YES, this is what we want. They should start right away!

  • Paul Smith

    A few years ago, here in Italy ENEA has already made studies and experiments on the same subject:

  • Christopher Calder

    Yes, using LENR reactors to produce synthetic liquid fuels (not biofuels) is a good idea. Methanol, anhydrous ammonia, dimethyl ether, and synthetic octane are a few of the many possibilities.

    Bill Gates and the Chinese have invested in EcoMotors International, a company that has invented a revolutionary two cylinder boxer style diesel engine that can also be altered to run on ordinary gasoline or just about any synthetic fuel. It is highly efficient and cheaper to build than the gasoline engine you have in your car right now, with 50% fewer parts and much lighter weight. This all adds up to cheaper, longer lasting, more reliable cars and trucks, all with hybrid style MPG without hybrid style cost and complexity.

    See their YouTube video at


    See their website at:


    • Thomas Dodgson

      This could be an even better engine for all transportation including air cars and jet packs. http://pesn.com/2013/10/28/9602385_Aviation-2.0_enables_Jetpacks_VTOL_flying-cargo-ships/

    • Job001

      Diethyl ether can function as a direct replacement for gasoline with a similar low vapor pressure(existing gas tanks) and can be fabricated directly from Co2 and H2 with existing catalysts and/or by water removal from ethanol condensation. Thanks for the ecomotors link.

  • US_Citizen71

    Not a new idea, but a good one if you have a cheap energy source to power it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

  • bitplayer
  • bitplayer
  • bitplayer
    • GreenWin

      Humorous to watch BP and friends scramble to invent something… anything to combat the inevitable arrival of low, low cost electricity. We will see many more such “inventions” as the paradigm continues to shift.