Rossi: “Practically Impossible” to Retrofit Coal Power Plants with E-Cats Due to Authorization Issues

On many occasions people have suggested that one easy way to incorporate E-Cat technology into the existing energy infrastructure is to simply take out the current heating systems from power plants (coal, gas, nuclear) and put in E-Cat heaters. All you need to generate electricity is steam at sufficient temperature and pressure to drive the turbines, and if you can match the heat from burning coal with heat from E-Cats, it would not seem to be major problem. You could keep the turbines and other necessary elements for steam production in place, and the electricity transmission systems would not need to be altered.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi make a comment that puts that assumption somewhat in doubt. There has been quite a bit of discussion in the JONP about the Obama administrations new goals for carbon reductions, and this comment is related with that issue:

“I understand that there is the drama of the jobs bound to coal mining, but this too is an issue that can be resolved by technological retrofitting. When I proposed to retrofit coal fueled power plants with a system of E-Cats, I have been told that it is practically impossible due to permissions and authorizations bound issues: maybe to ease the retrofitting authorizations could be an intelligent compromise.”

So Rossi is not at all saying it would be technically impossible to retrofit current power plants — rather that regulatory decision making would be the issue. One would think that if government policy was in favor of reducing carbon emissions, that regulatory bodies would not put unnecessary roadblocks in the way of switching from coal to E-Cats.

There may be technical and safety issues to deal with, but I would expect them to be relatively minor. It seems the problem is more a human and political one. I hope intelligent compromise can be achieved.

  • Allan Shura

    My understanding is the e-cat is being used now for co-generator re-heating where the waste heat from plants is re-heated for electrical generation.
    I do not see any major technical issues with using a hot enough LENR based primary fuel for
    steam turbine power plants if the hot-cat matches required temperatures.

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

    Republicans want low cost energy. LENR is low cost energy.

  • fritz194

    You need a good, scalable concept and support from legislation to retrofit such plants.
    At least the HV distribution, the GenSet(even if not that efficient) can be reused.
    A concept which pays off within half the timespan of a traditional station – would get into the market. Because of the high COP, combined systems with heat and power can be “efficient” – even if that would never work with traditional primary energy.
    There would be the need to offer a modular system with somewhat 50MW electrical power.
    Everything designed to keep all components in container size.
    As traditional plants are unique setups and very special – this binds a lot of money.
    Having modular drop-ins would be a game changer on its own.
    Yes, I understand that “retro-fitting” plants without any additional inventive step might be a no go.
    Otherwise I think that if you re-invent how these systems are built – there is lots of money to earn.
    Working for a company in that field, I know that even every supplier has its own private standards of safety and control.
    So a mid-sized, modular “brick” with specified “standard” safety and control aprobation would be a new item on its own.

  • Omega Z

    Actually, U.S. Healthcare is a disaster. Over 30 million people do not have a primary care physician. They have only emergency room care. It is 20% of GDP at $10K per person(#.2 Trillion$ & heading towards 25%. U.S. Healthcare is the Replacement of the Military complex 5 times over. The Over 30 million people without a doctor will only increase as the number of doctors per capita is in major decline.

  • Omega Z

    “it’s obvious that most E-cat world followers are US citizins”
    I wouldn’t bet the bank on that. I don’t know who lurks in the shadows, but i detect a large number of English as a 2nd language among those who post. Many are quite proficient. It is many times quite hard to tell.

    I doubt anyone logically thinking believes Rossi will have a monopoly. More accurate thinking would be a short head start. And, I doubt there is anyone here at ECW who doesn’t want this technology to be accessible world wide.

    What I don’t understand is the animosity towards a man who spent years of his life & his money to develop a technology that many do not recognize as real. If NOT for Rossi, I doubt there would be half a dozen or more replication attempts in as many countries and not even a fraction of the people involved. This attitude sometimes makes me wonder if this world deserves such a gift.

    • ecatworld

      Just over 1/3 of ECW traffic comes from the United States.

      • Omega Z

        Thanks for confirmation Frank
        I was reasonably sure the majority here wasn’t from the U.S..
        However, I can understand someone who isn’t a regular or not engaged with the comments could get that impression. There are many non U.S. citizens that appear very fluent in English but for a few obscure telltale signs.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          maybe some responsible writer prefer not to write in a foreign language…
          (does not apply to me )

        • Agaricus

          As a non-US citizen I try, but I’m sure there are many slips that give me away.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Solar & Wind will not likely compete with the e-Cat on an economic basis.
    But the e-Cat may not be able to compete with Solar & Wind on a “spiritual” basis.
    Rossi needs to repackage the e-Cat. Maybe call it Cecil.
    Make it pulsate with a warm glow and emit yoga mantra sounds.
    Announce that the secret catalyst is human embryonic thyroid tissue.

  • roseland67

    Start with a coal plant that has already been decommissioned.
    More often than not, these are on superfund cleanup lists so
    they can rarely be developed in the typical fashion and the physical land
    is usually dirt cheap.

  • Guru

    Whole idea of retrofitting old coal powerplants with Hot-Cats is economically wrong.
    What customer want to pay transmission fees and margins and VAT and lossess in grid ?

    Customers will want OWN mini/micro powerplants in its own site. No transmission fees, no margins, no lossess and not sure about VAT.

    • Omega Z

      Guru

      I disagree. There will be substantial loss using these systems as an individual. As an individual, You’ll need to produce Peak capacity even when not needed. All that energy will be waste. It’s just the nature of how energy is produced & how it’s used.

      Probably the best option is a Micro-Grid. Shared by a community or neighborhood rather then a large central grid a hundred miles away.

  • Paul

    The solution is starting to use the E-Cat in other countries without a so strict regulatory system. No trouble and USA will follow! You cannot imagine to work in Miami for ever…

    • Omega Z

      Actually, Other countries are catching up fast in the regulatory realm.
      And guess, what. They really like to sue American concerns when things go wrong.

  • Omega Z

    Most U.S. coal plants are due for dismantling anyway. Not just the boilers, but the turbines & generators are old & suffer metal fatigue.(Much Maintenance to maintain) Obama’s plan is merely to assure any new plants are N-gas or new state of the art coal plants with the addition of carbon capture. I don’t know if the U.S. has any state of the art coal plants at all to date.

    They would need to be less then 15 years old to have been built state of the art. I think most if not all are at least 40 years old and many are surpassing 50+. Thus, buy 2030, all will have been dismantled & replaced most likely by N-gas plants.

    Keep in mind, there is a reason these old coal power plants aren’t being converted to N-gas. It can be done, It’s just not economical. Converting to LENR will be no cheaper & likely will cost more then switching to N-gas burners. How much do you want to invest before you start dismantling.

    It would probably be cheaper to build a 50Mwh pilot plant designed LENR specific. It would be efficient & good to go for 50 years.

    • Agaricus

      Boilers, fuel handling and exhaust arrangements only account for a relatively small part of the cost of a power station if you exclude ‘carbon capture’ and similar lunacies. The buildings, control and safety systems, turbines, condensers, generators, transformers and switchgear would be completely ‘re-usable’ in many more recent installations, provided that boiler characteristics could be approximately matched. This would mean that the cost of replacement of coal or NG fired boilers with cold fusion boilers would be a fraction of the cost of starting from scratch.

      Rossi says that “I have been told that it is practically impossible…” for bureaucratic reasons, but if this is the case then exactly the same ‘problems’ will make it practically impossible to build new CF power stations. If the technology is eventually safety certified for new build, then there should be no problems with retrofitting suitable existing installations.

      • Omega Z

        “if the rest of the equipment is reasonably modern”

        I can only speak of the U.S.. I doubt there are ANY new coal plants in the U.S., Like Nuclear, I don’t think they’ve built any new coal plants in decades. If they have, there wouldn’t be more then a couple.

        At some point they designed coal & N-gas plants that could use the same boiler. The coal is pulverized to a fine powder and sprayed out under pressure & burns as a flame like N-gas. They did this so that they could easily & economically switch depending on cost trends. This setup actually created a downward pressure on fuel costs by creating a competitive market between coal & N-gas.

        As to Boilers for the E-cat. They will be substantially different. Thus very likely starting from scratch. The E-cat also operates substantially different from a gas burner. Instead of a shooting flame, you have basically a heating element. Thus, instead of shooting a pressurized flame through a long tube, The E-cat would need to be embedded into the boiler walls.

        I’m reasonably confident that the E-cats will cost much more then a gas burner, however, I think? the boilers should be smaller thus possibly cheaper & offsetting some of the cost. Even if it initially costs more, you still have the fuel savings..

        I started checking out the boilers a while back, but got interrupted & sidetracked, but what stuck with me is that the 1 I was looking at was 300 feet tall. WOW. The Interior(Flame tube/chamber) looked to be at least 30 foot across. That’s as far as I got. I don’t now what the exterior size was or if this was 1 or 1 of several nor the size rating. Hopefully, that was a 1Gwh system.

        Anyway, It would take a lot of the Hot-cats we have seen pictures of as those were only 3.5Kwh reactors. I’m certain 6 of those would cost much more then the gas valve & gas orifices in my furnace. About $50. I think this has much to do with Rossi’s R&D on the new reactor. To increase output verses manufacturing costs. It’s a psychological issue for the customer. Doesn’t matter if it pays for itself in 2 or 3 years. If the upfront cost is high, it’s a turn off.

        As to the regulations, The same will apply to a new power plant, however, I would bet it would be easier then a retrofit. It’s simple. There is a bureaucratic process for a new system. Not so much for adaptation.
        Does that make sense..

  • Omega Z

    You ever consider more expensive green energy is bad for the economy. An extra $200 dollars a month may mean never buying a new car again. Ever. That the car companies will lay people off. To make ends meet, those at the margins now need government assistance. To reduce there utility costs may end their access to computers & the net which is becoming necessary to do about anything as far as making a living. The More things cost, the more wealth becomes concentrated among the few. The less they cost, the more distributed money is.

    In the coal industry, It isn’t the 50K to 60K excellent paying Jobs(income of $75K plus benefits to start), they are concerned with. It is the total economic picture. Ever seen a small town of 11K after a mine closes up. 50% poverty. Many small businesses close up. It’s not pretty…

    It’s not that the mine employed many people 100 at most. But it paid millions in local taxes that paid for schools, teachers, police, fire protection etc… It was an anchor without which many of those jobs also cease to exist. Imagine this over 100’s of small cities. Millions of people will suffer. You shouldn’t take this so lightly. It could be your job next.

    As for politicians, Most of them are out of touch with mainstream regardless of party. Simple minded, they tend to do things without thinking of the consequences. At least in this case, the right is looking. However, I doubt either party understands the concept of an economic driver. A lost concept.

    The advent of LENR will have similar consequences, but it will be gradual & people will have time to adapt & prepare. Unlike a sudden impact.

  • theBuckWheat

    Many of these coal plants are going to either be scrapped or are facing significant re-engineering and upgrades to meet the new draconian and tyrannical EPA emissions requirements. The emergence of a heat source that is non-polluting is a stunning development. How likely is it that some form of e-cat could be tailored to the existing temperature ranges of such a plant? I don’t know. But I do know that using an e-Cat still would require a large amount of cooling capacity for the steam cycle. So, there is a good fraction of existing plants that probably are usable should an e-Cat heat source be available.

    I am awaiting how environmentalists will object to e-Cat and LENR. As sure as the sun rises in the east such opposition is coming.

  • Obvious

    Rossi is smart, and plays the long game.
    He says something like this, and a whole bunch of folks get upset and petition our lawmakers, etc.
    Problem solved, and he barely lifts his fingers to do the heavy lifting….

    • Agaricus

      Perhaps he also avoids scaring the natural gas people, who are the ones who will take the greatest initial hit from cold fusion.

  • Axil Axil

    As the extent and importance of automation grows in the life of a nation, so to will the number and importance of the people who create, attack, and protect that automation infrastructure. A nation and its people will be so dependent on automation, that an attack on that automation cannot be allowed to occur. Only people with skills can either attack and/or fight against such attack. A perpetual cold war will develop in which nations try to undercut other nations to advance their interests. The thief of intellectual property and information is also important here. The same will be true for people who will probe for soft targets around the world to divert the wealth of others to their own purpose. Future employment will center on either the support and/or the destruction of automated infrastructure worldwide on the national, cooperate, and personal l

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

    Your argument makes no sense. Politicians are mandating solar and wind and biofuels now, and they are all “green” and very destructive wastes of money. LENR is environmentally ideal (“green”) and constructive (efficient). Politicians won’t object as long as they know LENR really works. Politicians are afraid to talk about LENR now because they are not sure it works. There are no products available to test. Politicians don’t want to look like fools by backing a technology that may be just a myth. When they know LENR is real, they will enthusiastically promote it. The down side of LENR are the vast military applications. There will be a LENR arms race, because you can power submarines, tanks, aircraft, spacecraft, anything with LENR.

  • Independent Experimenter

    Coal power plants are in large numbers in the USA and are privately owned. Most of them have more than one boiler and many private power plant owners own more than one plant and could easily make up for the temporarily loss of one boiler.

    When you are prototyping and testing and you don’t intent to sell the power, the regulations are extremely lax.

    Rossi could easily find one private company exploiting coal power plants and willing to temporarily decommission one coal boiler to retrofit and test the E-Cat without selling the electricity. This would be research and development, not commercial exploitation.

    Very little expense from the part of the business to see if it works. And if it does work, the first business to do this would reap huge benefits over their competitors.

    Might the real reason be because Rossi can’t prove his claims ?

    • Omega Z

      There are approximately 600 coal plants in the U.S., tho there may be more then 1 generating system at any given plant site.

      Nearly all these plants are at end of life. Many have actually had their license extended beyond end of life as a stop gap until replacements can be built. This is why they have not been converted to N-gas. Deemed uneconomical to convert.

      Undertaking a retrofit would also be huge. It is not a simple matter of changing out burners for E-cats. The entire boiler system would need scraped(Keeping only the Turbine & generator). They are huge & don’t fit at all with what would amount to a heating element.

      E-cats would be much more suitable to a Nuclear plant boiler as they will be much like fuel rods. This isn’t an option as the site is radioactive. However, the basic design would be a good starting point.

      The best option is purpose built to the E-cat being built as small as possible while maintaining enough scale to be highly efficient conversion of steam to electricity. Smaller power plants could be built within the area of use rather then far away.

      If I were Rossi & were looking to retrofit an old system, it would be of a small scale only for proof of concept. A proof of concept system could possibly bypass many regulations.

  • Mike the Engineer

    Actually, on this point, I respectfully don’t think Mr. Rossi is correct. (I’m sure he wouldn’t mind being proven wrong on this point.) Technically it would be inexpensive to convert a coal plant, and from a regulatory standpoint, not too bad, in my judgment. I will explain:

    Technically, you could have a closed loop of gases heated up by the e-cats, flowing through the boiler and then, in a closed recycle loop going back to be reheated and reused. Probably best to use either 100% H2O or CO2 because these are two common gases with a radiative emittance. You would have maximum heat transfer in the radiant section (most efficient heat transfer and also would provide highest superheat temps). Only problem I can think of with using H2O is condensation when you very infrequently have to shut down (once a year?), but then you could open your stack to atmosphere and let outside air be induced through the system to remove any H2O. Or else use CO2. Then you would have just a very small CO2 emission, a tiny, tiny fraction of what previously would have been emitted with coal. But these details can be worked out, and the physical retrofit would be fairly easy, as I visualize it.

    Regulations: From the air permitting standpoint this would be easy also. This would be a New Source Review permit. Your asserted emissions? Well, no NOx, no SO2, no VOC, and just a tiny bit of CO2 (if you use CO2 recycling) or else no GHG if you use H2O recycling. Wastewater and solid wastes? Very small amounts.

    What Mr. Rossi might be thinking of is safety certifications. But most states have some kind of experimental provision for testing new systems. A demonstration somewhere of a boiler safely operating could alleviate concerns. As a whole the system is working with inert gases. And this is not really the “public” It would be in an industrial setting, with fences and security. Not like a kid is going to play around with it.

    My thoughts at least.

  • Billy Jackson

    I stated sometime back that getting acknowledgement of LENR as science isn’t going to be the big fight… regulations, laws, and petty politics attempting to protect established interest is going to be the biggest fight.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Right but a large coal plant when you include regulations
    etc., takes 7+ years to get done – and you tie up huge amounts of capital in
    the process (like 300 million dollars).

    It seems to me purchasing used coal plants should not be
    such a problem. Thus it not clear if we talking about technological issues (the
    boiler would likely have to be replaced – but the rest of the plant in theory
    should be useable), or regulatory issues. However, a typical coal to natural
    gas plant STILl costs in the range of 100 million dollars – not cheap at all (so a new plant is say 300-400 million, and a retro-fit to natural gas is 100 million).

    I would think that conversion to LENR would be “close” to
    the above natural gas conversion cost. So perhaps due to “so many” changes
    required, then converting coal to natural gas (or LENR) is a less then ideal
    choice.

    I suspect building from scratch is likely preferable, it
    on the surface still seems like a good business plan to take over used coal
    plants and retro fit them to run on LENR – especially the ones being such down
    due to new draconian CO2 regulations.

    Getting ones hands on an existing power plant that
    already built seems like a win win idea, but clearly there is some larger
    issues that I simply not aware of or grasping.
    However, such conversions are not really “cheap” or low cost when you start talking about 100 million dollars (so they are MUCH more then what realized – I just googed this issue).

    I am guessing that conversions to LENR might
    be somewhat cheaper then ng conversions – but not by a huge amount. A person is likely better off to build a plant with some solar panels, and a LENR gen-set – that way you can sell the power for huge inflated prices – in Germany many solar plants were actually running diesel generators at night because of the huge subsided rates they get for solar plants (some think as much as half the companies in Germany were doing this – imagine that your solar plant is producing electricity at night!). Makes me wonder if some companies simply took power from the grid and send it back out through their meters!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Omega Z

      Albert

      Power plants a very expensive. Nuclear even more so.
      Duke energy canceled a 1Gw(2-500Mwh I believe) plant in Florida. Initially priced at 2 Billion$ and eventually estimated at over 10 Billion$ & they hadn’t turned soil yet. Estimates for by time of completion(About 10 years) were expected to exceed $20 Billion Possibly 24 Billion$. Plans were permanently shelved.

      As to retrofitting, The only thing usable would be the turbine & generator. The Boiler would need built from scratch as E-cats are nothing like Coal or N-gas burners & likely would cost “more”. The savings is in the Fuel costs. Also, The main reason for not converting a coal plant to N-gas is economics. The Turbine & Generator are near end of use. You may have a lot of money tied up in something that wont last long or be a nightmare in upkeep.

      If I were to retrofit, it would be a small plant for proof of use/concept. Beyond that, It would be all new plants specifically designed for the way e-cats function.

      • Agaricus

        Meanwhile in the UK, Cameron is about to sign a deal with the Chinese for construction of a £25 billion deal to construct a 16GW nuclear dinosaur in Somerset, complete with a guarantee of paying twice the current going rate for electricity for 35 years.

        http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/5-august-2015/

        With all the problems surrounding this project, including safety issues, and with even the UK treasury expressing doubts, you really do have to question why Cameron is so determined to ram the deal through at almost any cost.

        • georgehants

          Morning Peter, maybe his unaccountable pension fund.

        • Omega Z

          I fully appreciate your concerns Peter. That project comes to mind anytime someone mentions building a Nuclear plant. Note in the U.S. similar guarantees are provided & aren’t limited to Nuclear, but also wind & solar projects. Our Utilities(By Extension the consumers) have to pay for any electricity they produce(Even theoretically) even if there is no demand for it.
          Insult to injury- They also don’t pay income tax on any profits. None…

          Aside from just seeing LENR breakout while I’m here to see it, I also want it to present itself before anymore of these monstrosities are built. Note it was just a small crop reduction in the heart of the U.S.(Primarily 2 states) due to drought that caused the Arab Spring. A Chernobyl in this region wouldn’t be a small reduction, but likely a near total elimination of this food production in these 2 states. Creating a World Spring would be putting it mildly.
          No “Intelligent Government” would ever allow a Nuclear plant near this region no matter how small the risk…

  • Albert D. Kallal

    It not clear why this is the case. Perhaps the issue is
    selling of the electricity into a regulated market, but then again, this is not
    clear as to the issue here. We are using TONS of natural gas since such plants can “soar” past the regulars with GREAT ease.

    Brillioun’s business model was exactly this concept –
    retro-fit existing coal plants with LENR. And you likely can get such plants for a song
    and a dance with new stringent CO2 regulations that make such coal plants less than
    economical now.

    So while I accept there are some regulatory hurdles – it simply
    not clear what the actual issues are. Rossi speaks of some “possible”
    compromise, but once again it not clear what the context is.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Axil Axil

    It reads to me that the authority to regulate the way power is produced in the states of the USA is controlled by each individual state. The federal government imposes regulations regarding pollution and nuclear issues but as long as the power plant meets those regulations, then the state is free to select the best way to provide power withing their borders.

    The LENR industry might provide power on a state by state basis in a way that completely meets the federal regulatory power generation requirements.

    The resistance of the states is based on the desire to protect vested interests such as the coal industry in that state. States without coal interests and states forced to abandon those interests through the actions of the federal govenment might find LENR a viable alternative to wind and solar power.

    Rossi may not have reevaluated his commercial position based on the new federal regulatory requirements. Like what is so often true with Rossi’s pronouncements, what was true yesterday is not necessarily true today.

    • Frechette

      Right on we have to buy the Washington politicians they are the best money can buy. It’s definitely the American way. Sorry for sounding so cynical.

    • Omega Z

      If only it were that simple Axil

      Couple years back, I installed a new Electrical service. Changing out an obsolete 60 amp (cartridge fuse) system with a modern 200 amp breaker system. You have State codes, City codes, County codes & you have to meet the Utility requirements.

      It is the last on the list you have to satisfy. They are the most up to date & if you don’t meet their requirements, you don’t get connected. You will find Government entities take years to catch up & have many conflicting codes that can become a nightmare. You simply can meet 1 code without conflicting with another. However, the Utility will straighten them out.

  • radvar

    The volume of news about utilities building gas-fired plants because gas is cheaper (and for other reasons) tells me that the total cost of ownership (TCO) of an electrical power plant is something like a disposable razor or an inkjet printer. Before long the accumulated consumable cost (in this case fuel) exceeds the initial equipment investment.

    So don’t bother to retrofit; just build new ones. That will require lots of politics and regulation, too, however, it would in any case, and LENR standalone would likely entail less than LENR plus coal retrofit.

    • Omega Z

      Power plants are quite expensive, However, most of the plants in the U.S. are very old reaching end of life. Some have been given provisional extended use license as a stop gap. The U.S. is having trouble meeting peak demand, so now there is a scramble to try & fill the gap.

      In the States, If a power company has excess capacity, the Government fines them. If they don’t have enough, they fine them. Most Utilities have little more then a skeleton crew. Should there be major outages do to storms, they call in workers from other Utilities half way across the country.

      About 8 years ago we had a major ice storm. Five utility workers in my backyard putting up new poles & restringing wire. 4 were from other states. 1 from Arizona. i felt really bad for him as it was 10`f. He wasn’t doing to well. I had a stove top percolator & made them several pots of coffee to fill their thermoses. I wanted them to know that some people appreciated there efforts under very trying circumstances.

  • US_Citizen71

    The problem is government red tape. No politician wants to be associated with policy that ends up killing jobs no matter how dirty and dangerous they are.

  • Gerard McEk

    Power plants have been designed for reliability and efficiency in delivering power and that includes supply of fuel and the big supply issues. For the LENR based systems these are no longer issues, assuming LENR can be proven safe. Small scale may lead to a reduction in efficiency, but that can be increased again by delivering both heat and electricity. Supply of fuel should never be a problem in case of LENR.
    Clearly, Andrea Rossi needs to realize that his strive to secure IP and keep the knowledge to himself will damp a quick introduction of LENR. Although I understand his position in this, I do not think this is good for the benefit of mankind.

    • modernsteam

      Initially, it may not appear to be “good for the benefit of mankind”, Gerard, but ultimately the public’s interest would not be served if would-be inventors have little or no prospect of getting their investment, and that of their other investors, back as a result of no IP protection, plus a bit of a dividend to boot . Benefits to the public from the invention may thus never be realized in fact. The public wins up front by open-sourcing the IP, but we lose down the line when new, badly-needed inventions do not come forth.

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

    There is no problem. Once LENR is proven in the marketplace, laws and regulations will change quickly to adapt to the new technology.

  • GreenWin

    Centralized power generation is a century+ old concept. In Edison’s day generation and transmission of electricity over long distance was the only “practical” way to deliver energy. Today, Distributed Energy Resources are far more practical and cost effective. But even district level DERs of just five years ago are being replaced by residential PV/storage, micro-CHP and microgrids.

    “When Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk unveiled the company’s new Powerwall battery to back up home electrical systems in April, Green Mountain Power Corp. CEO Mary Powell was at the event in California, looking to put her company at the head of the line to order them for its customers.” http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2015/07/vermont-s-green-mountain-power-ready-for-energy-revolution.html

    Leading the way to residential DERs is Vermont’s Green Mountain Power company. Backed by State legislation GMP is prepared to adopt the Tesla Powerwall PV/storage solution. This puts electric utilities in the energy appliance business – installing and maintaining residential/small business microgrids comprised of appliances like Tesla’s Powerwall.

    The new DER infrastructure replaces the old grid and paves the way for LENR 24/7 energy to replace PV/storage. “Smart” or dumb, the old electric grid is going the way of the dinosaur.

    Of course LENR powered energy appliances will eventually replace the PV/storage solution

  • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

    If the E-cat can make steam At a sufficient temperature and rate.
    Then there will not be any problems that the Chinese,
    Or 3rd world countries will have installing E-cats.
    As to the coal miner Mrs M Thatcher got rid of most of them,
    In this third world country.
    Plus we now have a wood chip burning Ex-coal fuelled station.
    Sorry but I think Mr Rossi Is only thinking Locally.
    .

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    bad news for Brillouin ?
    or maybe more complex.