Rossi: Gas-Driven Hot Cat Evolution Underway [Update: What about Emissions?]

We had some discussion here today about what the status of Hot-Cat R&D was. Rossi has said that the 1 MW plant they are spending so much time and effort perfecting is a low temperature E-Cat which would not reach temperatures sufficient to produce high-pressure steam necessary for generating electricity — only the Hot Cats would be able to do that.

So I asked Rossi about the status of Hot Cat R&D today:

Dear Andrea,

You mention that the current plant you are working on (and giving your full attention to) is a normal E-Cat plant.
Does this mean that development of Hot Cat plants will wait until the current task of perfecting your first 1 MW plant is complete?

************

Andrea Rossi
December 4th, 2014 at 1:16 PM
Frank Acland:
No, it does not mean that: as I explained, we are also working on the gas fueled Hot Cat, this R&D bringing with itself the Hot Cat evolution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Just a couple of days ago, when asked about progress with the gas-fueled Hot Cat, Rossi stated, “We are working on this issue very, very, very hard.” It sounds to me like IH may have decided to go all out in developing gas powered Hot Cat plants, which could be much more economical than electric powered ones, given the relative cost of natural gas compared to electricity. We don’t know what the COP of these Hot Cat plants will be, but if you used natural gas as the input, it would be around three times more cost-effective than using electricity.

UPDATE: A question was posted on the JONP about the emissions that would necessarily be be produced by a natural gas-fueled E-Cat:

Dear Andrea,
How do you feel about having to give up the “zero emissions” ideal for a gas fuelled e-cat?
Regards,
Patrick

Patrick Ellul:
Zero emissions with a gas fueled E-Cat is impossible. But due to the ssm and the efficiency the emissions will be of one order of magnitude less than with conventional systems.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Thinking about this, even if a Hot Cat were fueled by electricity, there would also likely be emissions involved, since most electricity generated these days is generated by burning fossil fuels. Things might be different if the electricity was generated by solar or wind (and Rossi has talked about a solar powered E-Cat), but that would add a new level of complexity and expense to a Hot Cat plant, which not everyone might be willing to invest in.

Down the road, if the E-Cat really takes off, it should be possible to have one Hot Cat plant generate electricity to power another one — but in these early days that’s not going to happen.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    You seem still to assume that heat is the only factor that enables the reaction, but as I have tried to say above it is possibly not. The reaction might stop after a while, even if the temperature is high enough. After a certain period of ‘relaxation’ it could be restarted, but this would not work with a cold reactor.

    • US_Citizen71

      I would agree, Rossi has said that electrical control is also needed. There is still likely a coil around the core of the gas cat. I believe that some amount of magnetic stirring helps the reaction along. The field strength may not need to be very large you only need to move around ions.

  • GreenWin

    If we spray RAID into the atmosphere that’d kill the termites. Now we just need to stop growing and eating cows, and two major sources of A… er, Animal Global Warming would be gone!

    • Omega Z

      Ruminant: An even-toed ungulate mammal that chews the cud regurgitated from its rumen.

      There are about 150 species of ruminants, which include both domestic and wild species. Ruminants comprise cattle, water buffalo, buffalo, goats, sheep, antelopes, deer, yaks, giraffes, camels, llamas, and their relatives.

      Big difference between ruminants & non-ruminants is which end the gas escapes. toot toot 🙂

      A compost pile in the backyard produces methane as do landfills, lawn clippings, all plant matter, all feces(land/water) when it decays. Want to eliminate methane production, you need to eliminate all biological’s. Methane is a natural occurrence with the breakdown of biological material.

      The Methane argument is highly promoted by vegans & animal rights groups & it’s primary target at this point is cattle. There was a time when U.S. buffalo herds exceeded today’s cattle herds. We need to raise more cattle to get back to even.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    We should not forget that we have only average data for periods of about 2 days. Especially the fact that the E-Cat runs only for a limited time in self-sustained mode (not used in the test) points in the described direction. If the activity is too low or zero for a longer period it would not be sufficient to switch the coolant pump off.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Sounds logical. However, it might be that the reaction fluctuates periodically for some reason that is not correlated with temperature. In the phase of low activity the energy might not be sufficient to keep the reactor walls hot enough for the next cycle.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I simply don’t get the gas fired ecat plant.

    Why not use the heat of the reaction itself to regulate the reactor? You only need external power to power the reactor up, but other than that the reactor would be self sustaining.
    Or why not use electricity made through some heat from the ecat to electricity process to heat the reactor. That should be feasible with a COP of 10 or higher.

    Why waste time with a gas powered solution when this solution is temporary at best. I expect the COP to rise over time making it easier to use both possibilities mentioned above.

    Maybe the problem is that heat can be regulated faster with gas, but that may also be a question of time. Once a competitor find a solution and creates a reactor that is self sustaining without the use of gas, Rossi’s solution will be outdated and uninteresting at once.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „Heat“ and „heat“ are not necessarily the same. For example, it might well be that Rossi needs a certain infrared wavelength to stimulate the reaction. Not every heat source would fulfil this condition. Powering the E-Cat by self-generated electricity would certainly be an option, but according to Rossi electricity production is currently at an early stage.

    • Thomas Clarke

      I made the same point below. Thermostatic cooling would be a little more complex than electric heating, but it would cope with a larger thermal runaway and so be better at stabilising temperature.

  • bkrharold

    The ecat will definitely reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by replacing energy currently supplied by fossil fuels. Gas has only become “cheap” recently due to a relatively new technology called fracking or hydraulic fracturing. This uses a mixture of water containing abrasive agents and chemicals to fracture deep layers of gas containing rocks, releasing the gas. Unfortunately in their reckless pursuit for profits, companies engaging in this practice have ignored basic safety precautions, and created faulty wells, which leak vast quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas which is 25 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. A recent study showed that a minimum of 5% of wells leak methane, and there are tens of thousands of these wells. To make matters worse, despite the industries assurances, the chemicals used in fracking fluid are polluting our drinking water, poisoning farm animals and people. The companies use a fraction of their profits to pay off our execrable legislators and environmental protection agents, so the cost of this damage to our environment is being carried by the people whose land they have damaged, and by us the general public. This gas is only cheap for the producers, for us the the price will ultimately be very high, which we will pay with our health, and access to clean water.

    http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “Recent Study”… compliments of Vladimir Putin

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The gas powered reactors will still have an electric input, which could provide a (comparatively weak) EM signal, while preheating is done by combustion of the gas.

    According to Rossi, the reaction stops if the nickel melts, but there have been thermal runaways in the past. So presumably in such cases more energy is released than the cooling system is capable to remove before the reactor is destroyed. At least, there will be no “China syndrome”, provided that Rossi’s interpretation is correct.

  • Daniel Maris

    Unless the electricity was created by other hot cats…it’s like the birth of fire – originally tribes would just keep flames going by passing the flame from one fire to another.

    However we have yet to see a convincing demonstration of E Cat powered electricity (or any other LENR powered form) – something that weighs in the side of the sceptics of course.

    • mcloki

      So true. Electricity generation is the prize here. Heat is great and all but generating electricity in a small volume with little or no fuel weight added really open up the possibilities.

    • Job001

      Nah, as long as NG peakers are generating it is better to shut them down by using NG more efficiently, 10 to 1 Gas cat vs 3 to 1 peaker.

  • malkom700

    “But due to the ssm and the efficiency the emissions will be of one order of magnitude less than with conventional systems.” If this is only the first step towards the elimination of emissions, then we have to move this step very quickly.

  • Job001

    It’s just good economics. Natural gas is cheaper then electricity for heat production.
    Say retail NG is $10/MMBTU and Electricity is $0.15/KwHr converting this Electricity cost is 0.15x1E6/3412 = $44/MMBTU.
    For this example electricity is 44/10 or 4.4 times more expensive then NG.
    As far as net carbon produced goes, shutting down a peaker generator by running a gas cat using 10% as much NG would be a 90% reduction in net CO2. For the absolute purists, using bio gas instead would eliminate all FF carbon, possible but perhaps inconvenient or just silly like “Gilding a lily”.

  • Fortyniner

    I’m very pleased to learn that research continues on the ‘gas cat’, despite the primary focus on the LT pilot plant.

    “Zero emissions with a gas fueled E-Cat is impossible. But due to the ssm and the efficiency the emissions will be of one order of magnitude less than with conventional systems.”

    If we assume that ‘conventional systems’ refers to burning gas directly to obtain heat (regardless of the efficiency with which that heat is used), then emissions reduced by an order of magnitude presumably implies a COP of 10, i.e., 1 thermal unit of gas in = 10 thermal units out. To be able to reduce the usage of gas for electricity generation would certainly be a prize worth having.

    As this would presumably be a scaleable technology, ‘gas cats’ would also introduce the possibility of compact domestic gas boilers that could potentially reduce household gas bills to 1/10th of current levels (although the cost of maintaining the CF-assisted boilers could take up some/all of the slack).

    If industrial CF using ‘gas cats’ is introduced, it will be interesting to watch how governments try to prevent the parallel introduction of domestic units. So far we only have Rossi’s words to go on regarding development though, and I’ll defer any excitement until we see something a little more substantial.

  • GordonDocherty

    Why use gas when you can use a lightbulb 😉

    Interesting news indeed:

    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/12/04/compact-fluorescent-fusion/

    I believe the e-cat could also be reduced in size – in fact, it could well be seen as an IR lightbulb…

    What is needed now are better ways of collecting the em radiation (IR – visible – UV) by such devices. Perhaps a graphene sleeve ? :

    http://www.graphenea.com/pages/graphene-uses-applications#.VIF1C3uGIuM

    Such a sleeve could then be used to generate electricity, reducing the need for heat input to just system startup. With a much smaller amount of gas needed, a canister-based methane and/or hydrogen starter could be used – and if it is “just” electricity that is required, then a simple power switch would be all that would be needed to source the electricity from whatever source was to-hand, with preference given to power tapped from the graphene sleeve.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The reactions in the fluorescent light bulbs are presumably not cold fusion. It rather looks as if the heavier mercury isotopes lose neutrons. But where do these neutrons go? Theoretically, they could transmute 196Hg into 197Au. Maybe one could extract gold from the used bulbs? 203Hg is unstable and would – if it were temporarily present – not only produce radiation, but also decay to 203Tl, which is very poisonous. Supposedly, the certifiers did not take these possibilities into account.

      • GordonDocherty

        With so many inexpensive fluorescent light bulbs around (probably billions by now), it should not be too expensive or hard to test…

        As to there being no cold fusion, it all depends on how tight your definition is. There is certainly no cold version of classical hot fusion going on (how could there be, no Deuterium / Tritium) and, indeed, it looks like there is a large increase in the relative abundance of 196Hg at the expense of the other isotopes, showing a loss of neutrons (more “fission” than “fusion”, loss than gain), so it is a wonder where those neutrons went. Now, either these fluorescent light bulbs are beaming out “neutron death rays”, or slow neutrons are being released that are relatively benign (that is, don’t kill the cat as it sits under the fluorescent light bulb, or neutrons are being broken down in some way – now, there’s a thought.

        What this research does suggest, however, is that university labs around the world need to get busy re-assessing the safety of these fluorescent light bulbs, in particular looking for any telltale signs of fast neutrons and gamma radiation, then slow neutrons, and finally some other form of em radiation that may be emanating from the light bulb (perhaps the bulbs are brighter than they should be, for example, or maybe that is part of how they are generating their light and why they start to fade?)

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe that the main reason to use gas is that the hotcat can produce electricity. By doping it this way you can produce say three times as economical electricity than by just gas. That allone is worthwhile. This is just the first stage in development of LENR. I am sure that in the future LENR can be made self sustaining.

  • NT

    Uh bach, we all do not live in the “many greenhouses” – yet! I do not know about you, but it was 20 degrees below here yesterday and probably was ages ago…

  • EEStorFanFibb

    What’s with all this talk that fossil fuels “will be producing electricity for a long time”??? That is not the case at all. Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most regions and getting more so by the month. Meanwhile, the remaining coal fired plants in the USA alone creates over 500 Billion dollars a year in health care costs and lost productivity due to illness. That cost and many other non-trivial, damaging aspects to coal mining and related power generation are not even factored into the kWh price. There is no way the markets are going to be allowed to continue. Coal is all but dead. Even Goldman Sachs said so.

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/27/energy-markets/big-banks-see-bleak-future-coal

    • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

      The only low cost renewable energy system is traditional legacy large scale hydroelectric power. The Hoover Dam now produces electricity for about .03 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind and solar are horribly expensive, but zealots lie about the cost by making it seem as if peak theoretical output capacity is the only factor. CAPACITY FACTOR, intermittency, and lack of control (on-off at will) all conspire to make wind and solar horribly expensive and counterproductive investments. Wind is bad for the environment, for wildlife, and for human beings. Even the National Research Council found that wind, solar, and biofuel subsidies are a failure at reducing CO2 emissions despite 48 billion in federal subsidies. The high energy bills, the lost jobs, the increased budget deficits, deforestation, water pollution, topsoil erosion, and the global starvation caused by the renewable energy fad have had no positive effect that can possibly justify the massive damage. One of the good things about LENR is that it is going to bankrupt the wind, solar, and biofuel industries, and that cannot happen soon enough. We should all cheer the day when everyone who invests in these renewable energy scams starts to lose money. I pray there will be no bailouts for these con men.

      • Omega Z

        Chris
        Here’s something your not likely to read in the MSM.
        Large numbers of Wind Turbines in a some areas can change wind patterns just like a forest or mountains & effect the weather. Along with a drop in their efficiency.

        • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

          Industrial wind power is indeed a rotten scam. Some studies say that wind mills very slightly reduce CO2 output over their useful lifespan. Other studies found that they actually increase CO2 output a little due to the CO2 released during construction combined with the inefficiencies they add to the grid, as they always require fossil fuel back-up, which causes redundancy inefficiencies. What is 100% certain is that the dramatic increase in rates consumers have to pay for electricity becomes a drag on the economy that kills jobs. Windmills do make the Chinese factories that build them richer. What gets me is that every idiot politician in the USA gets his smiling picture taken with a windmill in the background. Industrial wind power is not a symbol of being “green,” it is a symbol of being stupidity and corrupt.

          • NT

            Wrong on many statements Christopher as here in Montana our wind farms, on mostly unproductive land and located in VERY windy areas, run at avg plus forty percent efficiency compared to about thirty percent efficiency for coal fired plants. One wind farm close to me (running at 42% avg efficiency) is backed up by local hydro power and the total MW/hr cost is $40 to the customer. Pretty cheap and mostly non polluting electricity for many years if you ask me. By the way Montana exports 60% of our fairly cheap electrical production and we like hydro and wind power at least until LENR takes over with even much cheaper, more efficiently and less transmission lines across the country, something none of us like to look at…

            • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

              Sometimes it is easier to see the speck in your brother’s eye (renewables) before noticing the wooden beam (fossil fuels, fission) in your own…

            • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

              Hydro is great. Wind is rotten to the core. If Montana had stuck with hydro and natural gas they would be in much better shape. Natural gas is the low cost new construction electricity source. Without subsidies and mandates, wind would not even be exist in amounts large enough to make the news. Oregon has lots of hydro too and we have wind which is dragging us down and pushing rates up. In states that have fossil fuel and nuclear power as the main sources, wind does far more damage. The electricity rates in Southern California and New York State are horrendously high. People should remember that the USA is bankrupt and existing only through a ponsey scheme of borrowing more money from other nations than we can ever pay back, and by printing up funny money out of thin air. The very last thing we need to do is increase energy costs and borrow more money from China to invest in costly feel-good renewable energy schemes that are only good for political publicity.

              • Job001

                Nah, try avoiding tea party economics and gold bug sites, it warps ones brain. For instance, energy is about 5% of wealth nation budgets and dropping, it’s a really good thing with some aggravating adaptation happening. Everywhere corporations want monopoly power to better extort customers, thus the stories they push are “Funding biased”. Follow the money, cui bono!

                • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

                  If you think high energy prices don’t hurt our economy, kill jobs, and raise food prices, then you are delusional. Food is important to people and FOOD = ENERGY & ENERGY = FOOD. The renewable energy fad equals starvation. Try to debate issues directly without smearing people with “tea party” insults. That shows a lack of understanding of issues. A fair debate means an honest debate. If you have facts, you don’t need smears.

                • Job001

                  Falsification of the cause of high energy prices is amazing. Cartels, monopoly, artificial shortage caused world wide depression. Innovation in energy happened and prices are in decline. Don’t buy the funding biased misinformation, it is inevitably BS.

                • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

                  Well, parts of what you said are true. What do you mean by funding? Mandates and end user subsidies are not funding scientific research, they are distorting the democracy, fairness, and wisdom of the marketplace. When you buy something with your own money you are more careful the way you spend it. You want good bang for the buck. When government disrupts that market wisdom, things go horribly wrong. We need government to build roads, railroads, and basic infrastructure, not dictate what we purchase with our own money. We have a government that vilifies oil. Right now we need oil to survive. If government restricts drilling, it raises the cost of energy. Technological innovation improved drilling technology so that companies could get more oil out of the ground. I would have preferred that government allow more LAND based drilling in Alaska and elsewhere because I am not comfortable with fracking. I don’t have enough evidence against fracking to condemn it or call for a ban, but I would prefer to use of proven techniques that we know are safe. Drilling on dry land in Alaska and elsewhere is very safe and does not disturb wildlife. Government making oil a villain while oil is still needed to keeps us all alive is simply bad government. A positive step toward LENR research is better than trying to destroy our own life support system while we are all living precariously in the intensive care ward, metaphorically speaking.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        seriously, you just come here to bash renewables with bullspit. you apparently haven’t seen the enormous shifts in energy production going on right under your nose. you think solar and especially wind are just scams? Well you must really be pissed to see the extent of the scam. LOL

        “German energy giant E.ON to focus on renewables.

        Germany’s largest power supplier E.ON is quitting conventional energy to focus entirely on renewables.”

        http://www.dw.de/german-energy-giant-eon-to-focus-on-renewables/a-18104023

      • Job001

        Some sites provide utility misinformation which make it sound as though RE investors are fools. In reality, RE investors are progressively making good smart returns while utility investors aren’t doing well.
        Big money dumps misinformation by the boatload, same in politics now. Learn to watch and judge your information source especially for funding bias.

        • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

          Wind and solar rely on mandates and subsidies from government. Without those mafia style tactics, bribes (subsidies) and strong arm tactics (mandates) people would not put solar on their roof or wind on the grid. In Texas, only a tiny percent of windmills are ever active and usable at any time. In Oregon, my utility companies loses money on wind power and just passes those losses on to consumers with rate hikes, exactly what we do not need during our ongoing global economic collapse. Utility company engineers that are responsible for managing the grid hate wind because it is so unreliable and unstable. States that have renewable energy mandates pay way for more electricity (30%+) on average than states that do not have them. The entire industry is a rip-off and a lie, and as stated earlier, wind and solar schemes reduce atmospheric CO2 levels (if at all) to such a tiny, inconsequential extent that it makes no logical sense to push them on us. It is impossible for anyone to make an HONEST and rational argument for solar and wind mandates and subsidies. Get government out of the energy marketplace and let consumers decide what energy products to buy.

          • Job001

            IKNOW!

            i.e. both sides of this nonsense! Utilities are less believable(funding biased) because of RE learning/experience curves which get better year after year after year after year after year…..get over it, things DO change.

            Utility costs increase every year(about 1%) and RE costs decrease every year(about 7%+), after while a certain pattern appears that is undeniable, even though the utilities don’t like it. Tough toe nails. ps:I favor no particular energy, and FF get the bulk of subsidies which I understand you don’t like much.

            • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

              In my state utility costs are rising much higher than that because of mandates for wind power. The cost of food continues to climb and more people are homeless and unemployed. The last thing we need is more government mandates for energy schemes that don’t work. Wind power does not work and you will never be able to make it efficient enough to compete in the marketplace on its own merits. Why kill all those birds and bats for nothing? It is irrational and a bandwagon to hell, not to nirvana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQMBdcbMTc

              • Job001

                Cost of food is cheap, 6.4cents/lb for field corn, and 60 times that for corn flakes, the processors and retailers are gouging, but people can start with field corn if they want.
                Yeah, birds and bats are cool.

                • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

                  “Cost of food is cheap” Have you purchased cheese lately? The cost of food is sky high and a major contributor to the collapse of the American empire and world human civilization and stability. The Arab Spring revolutions were caused to some degree by high food prices. A huge number of Americans now need food stamps just to survive. Food use to be affordable in this country, but bad energy policy (criminal energy policy) has made food too expensive to buy for many Americans without government welfare help. If we ban biofuels, end all energy subsidies and mandates for ALL energy sources, and spend just a small amount on LENR research (not LENR subsidies or mandates), we can lower the cost of food over time and then gradually reduce food stamp payments. We are deep in red ink, and unless we end our addiction to foreign wars and counterproductive energy policies, the cost of food will continue to rise and our societal collapse will continue. If people care about the poor they should not be so reckless and thoughtless about energy policy, because energy policy is also food policy (FOOD = ENERGY), and the poor need to eat too, not just wealthy vegans living in Montecito, like Al Gore.

                • Job001

                  Yes, from some points of view food has become more expensive, especially as the high cost of cartel energy raised the production cost of food throughout the world.
                  Interestingly, greed came back to haunt the greedy but the impact was first upon the lower class who rebelled, especially in the middle east and then upon the wealthy who have suffered also from unpredictable Arab spring revolution consequences.
                  As far as LENR goes, few wealthy investors have supported research and most actively fought the innovation all the way from 1989, presumably because it reduces their monopoly IP and market power.
                  Consequently, don’t hold your breath quite yet, nasty IP and ownership tricks may still occur that favor concentrated wealth over the poor or hungry. Perhaps not, some smart people do realize the disadvantage of defunding the poor or raising energy prices excessively, because it reduces sales and GDP growth, creates hunger, health issues, and unpredictable revolutions.
                  We can hope more leaders have advanced from the short sighted “Greed is good” view to “Innovative cheap energy is wise”.

                • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

                  I remain optimistic that LENR will take off like a rocket ship soon, hopefully in 2015. Just between you and me, I wrote Bill Gates (snail mail) through one of his many companies several weeks ago and the response I got from his staff, though legally cautious as you would expect, makes me believe that he is really interested. He has so many connections and such deep pockets, he could move mountains to clear a path for low cost, high energy density, bird safe, reliable 24-7-365, LENR.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      I agree. Perhaps more emphasis should be given to reducing the need for energy, and then sourcing this energy from an array of different, renewable, sources.
      What is a building’s U value? That determines its hunger for energy. If we begin by having a home or apartment with a very low U value, the energy demand will reduce accordingly – freeing the private individual of dependency on centralized (with a potential implicated interest) sourcing and distribution of energy for survival.
      Then, energy produced by producing energy could also be harnessed.
      There are many examples, for instance a farm that grows high quality shrimps with the energy it recycles from biomass http://www.garnelenhof.de/pages/produktion.php.
      In 120 years, fossil fuelled engines (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, LPG gas) are conceptually the same, though modified to improve performance and reduce consumption. Only the electric car and the recent hydrogen fuel cell (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/12/02/toyota-set-to-take-on-tesla-with-its-own-electric-car/) are something novel in the propulsion concept of the automotive industry.

      And yes, windmills may be unsightly, steal our legitimate jobs which are now performed by the Chinese, but nuclear fission or coal power plants do not hold the comparison, both in their operation, emissions, in the risks they pose to the environment and in their complete decommissioning costs. As horrific as the windmills may seem to some, the alternative is far worse. And windmills decommissioning will not be so difficult.

      Combining the array of renewable energies, co-generation, with the intelligent reduction for the energy crave can bring everyone a step closer towards responsible and sustainable human existence.

      • Fortyniner

        “As horrific as the windmills may seem to some, the alternative is far worse.”

        Not far from where I live, one of the largest ‘wind farms’ in the country (at the time) was proposed on a site next to the Hinkley Point A and B nuclear power stations. A huge campaign was whipped up, ostensibly led by the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – a bunch of luddites and Agenda 21 enthusiasts), and the proposal was eventually defeated.

        The site will now be used to construct HP C Station – the largest nuclear power station in the country, and a liability for generations to come, both financially and in health terms for those living nearby and downwind. I sometimes wonder if any of the protesters now regret getting so hyperventilated about the wind farm, in the light of subsequent developments.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          My father’s home is some 230 km from Sellafield (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/29/sellafield-nuclear-radioactive-risk-storage-ponds-fears). Many a fisher will tell of three eyed fish in their catch in the Irish Sea. It will be never too soon when the transmutation process will be possible for MOX and other plants, on a large scale. We and our children shall have to pay for that, though it is better to pay and survive, rather than being sacrificed to cancer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX_lzoYl9AU).
          It will never be to soon when we shall start to take responsibility for the environmental policies and practices that affect us, and for the politicians we continue to vote.

          • Fortyniner

            All the main UK political parties, including UKIP and the LibDems (who once steadfastly opposed it) currently support ‘new nuclear’, with the exception of the Green Party, in which opinion seems to be divided. So much for ‘democracy’, which now gives us a choice between technical illiterates who have been all too easily sold a lemon, or those whose pensions depend on imposing fresh nuclear liabilities on the population.

            • georgehants

              Peter, as I always ask, who are the scientific experts who are advising the government that their course is correct and if they do not think so, why are they not printing their opposition in the media or one of the premier comics.

              • Fortyniner

                Hi George. By and large the ‘persuaders’ are paid professional lobbyists acting on behalf of the nuclear industry, not scientific advisors. No record is made of whatever ‘inducements’ the lobbyists offer to individuals, or of the other methods they may use to ‘influence’ the opinions of politicians. It’s obviously something that should have been cleaned up and made transparent a long time ago, but in practice turkeys rarely seem to vote for Christmas.

                http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/36/36we36.htm

                Exactly the same system operates across Europe:

                http://www.wiseinternational.org/node/3293

                • Fortyniner

                  I found this old BBC hit piece against the Labour party, which (if you ignore the obvious intent) throws light on how the system works. The ‘connections’ of tory, libdem, UKIP etc. MPs are almost certainly much the same as those of the labour people.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5149676.stm

                • georgehants

                  Thanks Peter, very depressing.

                • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

                  You mean it’s all like the Italian government, only more somber, without the actresses, the bishops and the giggles….

                • Fortyniner

                  Corruption in a sober Moss Bros suit rather than a stylish Gucci one.

                • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

                  “Clean air! Clean air! My pinstripe suit for some clean air!”

                • georgehants

                  Peter, many thanks, does that mean the government does not have a panel of scientists advising them on the scientific advisability of hot fusion over all other forms of energy production, including the potential new science of Cold Fusion.
                  This would seem a crazy situation.

                • Fortyniner

                  I emailed the then energy minister and his deputy 18 months ago with more or less that question. I didn’t get a direct reply from either, but received an answer from some spokesperson to the effect they were aware and were keeping a ‘watching brief’ on the story. I suppose that is still the situation.

                  The Dept for Energy does employ a few scientists, but more relevantly it has its own agendas, led by senior civil servants for their own purposes. Officers are quite capable of spinning the information supplied to ministers, who of course are pursuing their own agendas, so it’s difficult to pin down where exactly misinformation originates. When politicians themselves bring in scientific consultants, it is generally in order to prop up positions they have already adopted for their own reasons.

                  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UKs_nuclear_illusion.php

                  The supposed need for new nuclear stations (which Blair used to further the nuclear agenda that Cameron is continuing) was supported by a couple of known pro-nuclear ‘experts’, whose input was (just for good measure) selectively exaggerated when senior politicians presented the ‘case’ to parliament.

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/31/ministers-misled-nuclear-power-stations

                  http://www.ukace.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ACE-Campaigns-2012-01-Corruption-of-Governance-Jan-2012.pdf

  • Omega Z

    Their already 100% Electric. Gas is just another option & works well during the transition period. Read some of my other posts.

  • kdk

    Well, you’d better have a clean way to manage the CO2, or the very least if you don’t believe that CO2 has anything to do with it, a way to manage the changing weather. I think that’s farther off. It seems it would be better not to assume that tripling the amount of something in the atmosphere is not going to have an effect. That is at least w/o a better understanding of how it all works, and I don’t think we’re there yet.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    thanks for the follow up reporting Frank. an order of magnitude less is acceptable I suppose…… for now. 😉

  • Omega Z

    Natural Gas E-cat??? Read some of the posts, there’s moaning in the air. OK. Got It.

    This is a transitional phase, both logical & cost effective..
    Once most Electricity is produced by E-cats, They will be powered by Electricity with maybe some exceptions. Presently, this is not the case.. Where we at. Bear with me while I confuse you.

    We use 1Kw,E to power the E-cat to make “10Kw of heat/steam”.
    COP=10, or is it COP=3.3x
    We used 3Kw of N-gas to produce steam to make the 1Kw-E.

    Fact, Most of our electricity is produced with fossil fuels & will be for quite sometime.
    So wouldn’t it make sense in the near term to use-
    1Kw N-gas to begin with to power the E-cat to produce “10Kw of heat/steam”. COP=10

    Notes:
    N-gas CO2 output is reduced by 2/3rds in this manor.
    Cop=10 Actual
    Input energy cost reduced by 2/3rds plus power plant/generator cost Etc.
    If converted to Electricity, COP=3 above input. “Not” including input.

    Obviously, There will be a tipping point when enough electricity is produced by E-cat power plants that the economics change & E-cats will be powered by electricity pretty much exclusively.

    To address another concern, You want Electric E-cats for home use.
    Sometime ago I calculated a 10Kw E-cat COP=6 would cost me more then my present N-gas heat & I still need my present system for peek demand. COP=10 was break even, But, I still need my present system for peek demand.It’s due to the nature of the E-cat. 24/7 operation

    Gas Cat changes everything. Cost wise, a COP=6 is like18. 10=30. Energy input cost drops by 2/3rds. However, It’s still 10Kw output, I still need my backup, but it is cost effective.

    But don’t worry about it. This is aimed at business which is much about Cost & sense. Ultimately, you have a choice. Will that be Gas or Electric. Cash or charge…

    • NT

      What backup power does the REGULAR user now have or use when it it off?

      • US_Citizen71

        Depends where you live. In Florida for example gas or diesel generators are about as common as house pets due to hurricanes knocking out power every year. Many households have installed permanent backup generators that run off the natural gas lines as well. Roofs covered in solar cells are not uncommon either mostly due to the high rebates the state gave to encourage the installation of them.

        • NT

          Yes US_Citizen, I agree that a very few of us are prepared for catastrophes. I too have backup for grid failures and food shortages here in the mountains of Montana, but I doubt that the majority of grid users (in cities) are so prepared to exist without these necessities!

      • hempenearth

        Hot cat (formerly coal) fired power stations

      • Omega Z

        In my post, Backup refers to my natural gas HE Furnace to cover peek demand. 10Kw is only 34K Btu’s

        For Electrical backup, a 5K genny works. That limits what one can do, but keeps the basics going. Furnace, fridge, a few lights.

        • NT

          Yep works for me in the mountains of Montana, but try that in an apartment building in a large city where most of the servants in this world live and work…

  • SiriusMan

    The frustrating thing about the current situation is we all know that a gas-powered E-Cat will look laughably primitive (within months) once various large industrial companies get to work on this.

    How long will it take Samsung to develop a self-looped LENR generator? According to this page:

    http://www.samsung.com/ae/aboutsamsung/samsungelectronics/researchdevelopment.html

    Samsung has over 50,000 people employed in R&D! Set aside 5% of that team to developing LENR tech and you will solve your engineering problems rather more quickly. How many people are working on Rossi’s team at IH? Ten or twenty?

    It sounds to me like the demonstration plant is to be presented as an ‘energy amplified’ gas-powered generator, because that is the politically-acceptable marketing angle that will cause least distress to existing fossil fuel industries.

    • Omega Z

      You can’t self loop. You either need a large battery rack or at least 1 additional e-cat generator so as to supply power to each other. All fossil fuel plants & nuke plants have external power for safety reasons. Note you’ll also need a converter & power conditioner. E-cats wont work with DC voltage.

      Without external power, things go bad. With nuke plants you get Fukushima. E-cats would be the same. The reactor will melt down. Just without the radiation. Even Fossil fuel plants may suffer serious damage without external power to maintain control.

      As to the Pilot Plant, It is electric. That electricity is likely provided by a fossil fuel plant using 3Kw of fossils for every 10Kw of steam or 300Kw for 1Mw of steam. If it were powered directly by Gas, it would only be 100Kw of fossil fuels for 1Mw of steam. This is based on COP=10. More is needed if it’s lower then that.

      Adding N-Gas to the mix just provides another option. Some countries have N-gas available, but little electricity. They have these countries in mind. Transition will take several decades.

      • Fortyniner

        I think SiriusMan is specifically referring to gas cats. Although there is apparently a control/stimulation system that must be driven by an electrical power supply – which could be a generator-supplied battery UPS system powered by the reactors – the bulk of the heat input required could be provided by ‘daisy chaining’ reactors. Most of the conventional power stations you refer to have extensive UPS backup systems, and in the case of nuclear stations, also banks of diesel generators to drive coolant pumps and failsafe systems in the event of loss of external mains power supplies.

        Depending on the ‘ignition’ temperature, gas cats might also be used to generate useful additional heat by utilising any hot exhaust flow (from an engine or industrial process) to initiate the reactors.

    • bkrharold

      Don’t forget GE, I am sure they will want a piece of the action

  • bkrharold

    Since this will be an entirely new product, this is a golden opportunity to start out the right way, using green technology. Each individual unit will not use much, but if there are hundreds of millions of ecats, they will create a lot more CO2. It is true they will also be saving some CO2 emissions replacing power generated by coal. At the very least, they could use some sort of biofuel for a net zero change in CO2. The increasing number of extreme weather events are causing $billions damage, and in the future they could cost $trillions if we don’t stop the CO2 emissions. Let the ecat be part of the solution, not another problem.

    • Omega Z

      If the gas is in place of electricity generated by fossil fuels, It reduces CO2 by 2/3rds minimum. A net improvement. Not additional.

  • NT

    Right you are bachcole, natural gas emits about 30% less CO2 than does average coal fired plants with very few fine particulates of combustion called (PM3.5) compared to the horrendous amounts of fine particulates emitted with coal combustion plants…

  • http://www.libertynewspost.com/ Liberty Newspost

    Ask Rossi about what he thinks about Bill Gates Visit to ENEA in Italy.

    • hempenearth

      I think Frank already asked Rossi if Gates had visited him (or IH) and Rossi just said he makes no comment about private meetings he has had.

  • builditnow

    I’m hoping for a jet engine powered by Hot Cats. The hot cats would need to be heated by something to get started, so, for a plane or car, use a little gas or gasoline or jetfuel. Once the Hot Cats are up to temperature, their temperature can likely be controlled via controlling the air flow and no further gas or gasoline would be required. A microjet engine coupled with a generator could be an add in for electric cars.
    Now I’m remembering all those scifi movies with cars having turbine sound, Hum.

  • hempenearth

    I know bachole but there is the occasional suggestion that there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere and that adding any more CO2 is not helpful.

  • Alain Samoun

    Using Gas powered E-Cat would make it more economical and eventually portable by using batteries only for its control. It may be the first step for an hybrid E-Cat car,truck or train.

    • Omega Z

      The Tesla D has a 285Kwh battery. A 10Kw E-cat’s not going to cut it. I have concluded that Rossi is probably right. There 20 years away. Rossi;s an Optimist you know…

      • roseland67

        Omega,
        I believe it is 85 kWh not 285 kwh

        • Omega Z

          It appears you are right. Thanks for the correction.
          The article I read must have had a typo. Still 10Kw wont go far. need about 270Kw allowing for 33% conversion.

          • bkrharold

            Not so, an ecat generates 10Kw which is about 3Kw electricity. That means it will fully charge an 85Kwh battery in 28 hours. The car doesn’t use all of this at once, it probably only needs a maximum of 20Kw for a few seconds during high acceleration, and less than 10-15Kw cruising along with the air conditioner and radio going, and zero while it is parked in traffic or outside your place of work. With the ecat charging at 3Kw that reduces the normal load to 7-12Kw during driving. assuming you are driving for about 3-4 hours a day, and 8 hours charging in traffic and at the kerbside, it will be almost fully charged at the end of the day. So for most normal day to day use, a few hours charging each night will be more than enough for the next day with just one 3Kw ecat.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Ah this is why they have one customer. The customer proofs the technology concept but the engineering for the broad market is not even completed.

  • hempenearth

    Gas powered means emissions, that’s not in line with the philosophy of Bill McDonough.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If you wish to displace you must either retrofit, or wait for the old technology to wear out and replace it. Do you think Bill wants to scrap and wait. He is a very successful man, you do not become that successful being blithe. He is a successful engineer and a visionary, which means being a realist.

      • hempenearth

        In my brief scan of some of Bill McDonough’s writings and speeches I think he wants to “do good” as soon as possible rather than “doing less bad” as an intermediate step. So I would guess retrofit old tech and reuse the serviceable parts where possible.

        • Omega Z

          hemp

          It’s just an Option. But consider where that 1Kw electricity comes from that powers the 10Kw E-cat. If it’s Gas, your using 3Kw to make 1Kw electric. Use the Gas directly & it’s just 1Kw of gas. Not 3.
          Gas also produces less then half the CO2 as Coal.

          Also consider countries that have N-gas & little electricity. This option is then indispensable. At least for the next decade or 2…

          • Ophelia Rump

            Your numbers are incomprehensible to me.

            An Ecat being powered by 3Kw of gas with a COP of 11 will produce 33Kw in heat, and at 33% efficiency in conversion into electricity 11Kw of electricity. My numbers were conservative, because I did not use the cat and mouse configuration which should double output resulting in approx 23Kw electrical output. for 3Kw gas input.

            All numbers roughed for a thubnail estimate.

    • http://www.libertynewspost.com/ Liberty Newspost

      What emissions?

      • hempenearth

        CO2, see below

  • Warthog

    In the long run, NO energy source is “sustainable”. After all, even the sun will burn out eventually. But there is plenty of natgas for a few more centuries, and, as a fuel source, it is one heck of a lot better than coal, both from an efficiency standpoint AND from a “carbon emissions” standpoint. And that same few more centuries is plenty enough time to fully develop and apply LENR.

    • Omega Z

      “even the sun will burn out eventually”
      The Hail you say. We’ll I’ve said before, were headed for another Ice Age. Looks like it’s going to be a very Dark Ice Age…

  • EEStorFanFibb

    I’m not a fan of using NG for anything after 2030.

    • Omega Z

      We’ll need NG for a long time. If they can transition by 2030 would be great. That leaves that much more for other uses.

  • Greg Leonard

    It would also lead to the replacement for your central heating boiler as a CHP device

    • Ophelia Rump

      Or the gas furnace in a home