Excerpt from Vessela Nikolova Interview with Andrea Rossi (Video)

Thanks to Pelgrim for sharing this link to an excerpt of an interview that Vessela Nikolova of the E-Cat The New Fire website conducted with Andrea Rossi. I am not quite sure when the interview took place, but according Vessela in video below, it is an excerpt from a longer interview that will be shown at a meeting about alternative energy and LENR that will be held on October 3rd in Terni, Italy.

The interview is in Italian, but English subtitles are provided. The main subject covered in this excerpt deals with the contribution of new technology in the reduction of greenhouse gases to combat global warming. Andrea Rossi expresses his ideas on the subject, and states that he believes that the E-Cat could make a contribution in that effort.

Rossi is talking on a phone via Skype, so the audio quality of his voice is pretty bad


  • Why oh why do clever and intelligent people rant about global warming/climate change.
    Warmer is better I would rather adapt to a 2 degree Celsius increase in “global” temperature,
    Than to have to live under 0ne mile of snow and ice.
    The volume of Co2 in the atmosphere is minuscule, The increase of one thousand of one present of a rare atmospheric gas is in my opinion and many others, is that it is more beneficial than harmful
    The increase of 10% in serial crops is one pointer.
    As Mr Rossi makes the point Nobody knows.
    He makes also the statement that it is better to do something about it just in case.
    I make the point,that doing some thing to correct something you have no clear understanding about is pointless.
    VW Lie about Co2 emission’s, China burns coal that is not as Dirty As first thought.
    The temperature has held steady for the last 18 years and not one computer simulation has made an accurate prediction yet. Do not get me started about tree rings and Hockey sticks.
    Or people buying sea front properties when spieling about a increase in sea levels.
    Please Check out the facts try Watts Up With That, site as a starter please.

    • LCD

      You seem pretty confident in your opinion. It’s probably best to be more than just a little worried, since we don’t have another place to live

      • Worrying does not Make cakes or raise bread.
        We live on one fifth of this world and know little of the rest.
        So how can we have the hubris to say the science is settled?

        • LCD

          Worried, err on the side of caution, however you want to put it.

    • LuFong

      My observation has been that there are four phases of global warming/climate change denial. The first is to completely deny that climate is changing. The second phase is the accept that climate is changing but that it is not primarily anthropomorphic, i.e., it’s completely natural. The third phase is to claim that climate change regardless of the source has many benefits and is actually good for humanity. The final phase is argue that while global warming/climate change is occurring and primarily caused by man, government is not the answer and that capitalism will on its own and very efficiently solve the problem.

      All of this I believe is occurring to protect a small group of personal economic interests. I don’t need to point out examples of each phase, including your post.

      Just my observations and opinions and am not looking to argue the science of climate change. My interest in the E-Cat is primarily from the climate change perspective although I realize it will also be a huge economic boon to humanity which will be a good thing too.

      • LuFong. I agree with all the points you make.
        It would seem I have hit every one.
        All I have tried to do is keep an open mind.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Here you go Mr. Rossi.

    You’re welcome.

    How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change, and How do They Compare with Natural Influences? http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

    99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I must say that I’m moved by the sincerity of our world leaders but why will they not even mention the name of the invention that would eliminate the need for a carbon tax?

    • GreenWin

      They’re NOT world leaders?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        “…the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
        Benjamin Disraeli

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Water vapor also absorbs in the infrared. Therefore it is a greenhouse gas.

    Let’s get rid of water too.

    • Alan DeAngelis


      The E-Cat will save us because it doesn’t emit any of the major green house gasses (CO2 or H2O).

    • Mark Underwood

      Water cycles are very short, a matter of days. Heat evaporates water into the atmosphere, and the water within a matter of days condenses back out of the atmosphere, such that a planetary equilibrium is maintained, other things being equal.

      Carbon Dioxide is very different. It does not condense out of the atmosphere. Its cycle is much longer, on the order of thousands of years. It causes some heating, and that relatively slight heating enables the atmosphere to absorb even more water, which acts as a greenhouse gas to cause significantly more heating.

      Frankly I was surprised that Rossi is intimating that it is more likely that the earth heating is a natural cycle, not caused by man. But look at the ice core data of temperature fluctuations over the last 100,000 years, and we are not due for a cycle of natural heating; we are due for another cooling and ice advance. It could be, serendipitously, that our carbon emissions will forestall this. Balance is the key and I think we will ultimately master that balance in the long term, possibly having the CO2 at an average of about 600 ppm. Currently we are just under 400. (It has about doubled since 1750.) But it seems to me we are going to way overshoot 600 ppm and will eventually have to actively extract CO2 from the atmosphere to avert global crisis. But that will be in 50 years, when technologies like cold fusion and hydrino power are sufficiently widespread to make reducing the CO2 of the atmosphere feasible.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Unlike oxygen, O2, carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water so CO2 would also be cycling with the water vapor.

        CO2 + H2O H2CO3

        • Mark Underwood

          Good point. I wonder how much local atmospheric CO2 drops after a rain. This cycle I assume is *the* major way that oceans absorb CO2; the rain is a mild carbonic acid, which ends up ultimately in the ocean since most rainfall is over the oceans. I recall hearing that *most* CO2 emitted into atmosphere ends up in the oceans. But there is excess and it is this excess that we are measuring that keeps on accumulating in the atmosphere. I suspect that when the day comes we are no longer burning fossil fuels, that the ocean itself will be the main contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere, until equilibrium is established. So, it’s going to come back to bite us. That is why we might have to actively extract CO2 from the atmosphere or oceans in the future when we have clean sources of power.

          • Obvious

            I thought was what limestone was all about: natural CO2 sequestering from the oceans.

            • Mark Underwood

              It’s a bit counterintuitive; increasing CO2 in the oceans inhibit calcium carbonate (limestone essentially) from precipitating out. When the oceans start to *lose* CO2, then the dissolved calcium bicarbonate (which exists only in the aqueous state) starts to precipitate out as calcium carbonate.

              I’ve now rethought my way of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. It would be simply through growing vegetation, and converting that vegetation to biochar (using clean energy), which would be added to our soils, greatly improving them. Biochar stays sequestered in soils for hundreds of years.

              So in essence, the carbon originally from underground from oil and gas deposits, and which is now in our atmosphere and oceans as carbon dioxide and carbonates, would get transferred to our soils. It’s a win win.
              From oil to soil.

              • Obvious

                Most limestone is the concentration of shells of (formerly) living creatures, not precipitated calcium/magnesium carbonate. When there is insufficient carbon in the water, then these shells cannot be made properly, and the organisms reduce in number and variety. The calcium and magnesium is derived mostly from the weathering of rocks, and is constantly replenished. This happens on a lesser scale with insect life in ponds also.

                • Mark Underwood

                  I don’t recall hearing about potential problems caused by insufficient carbon in the water, hmmm. Anyway yes, sea animals like corals acquire their calcium carbonate and then ‘precipitate’ out into what becomes our limestones. (Or in special circumstances like in caves calcium carbonate can precipitate out of water by itself.)

                  But if the water is acidic (from CO2) such animals must expend greater energy making their shells and such. That, and temperature increases, is why the corals and some other animals who assimilate calcium carbonate are having trouble. This is not an age of limestone formation.

                • Obvious

                  It seems to me that the major limestone formation eras follow major volcanic activity eras. The mineralization of seawater then being due to enormous amounts of ash being directly put into the oceans, followed by erosion from the landmasses of this ash, then more slowly the more solid volcanic rocks. It depends greatly on the makeup of the volcanoes. Rhyolitic volcanoes have more silica, which weathers more slowly and may even acidify the oceans somewhat. Rift volcanoes tend to be more alkaline, and are often sub-aerial, so they dump carbonates directly into seawater in enormous amounts, and generally over much longer timescales. I would tend to think that they have a greater control on ocean pH and carbon overall than atmospheric CO2, but I haven’t researched any numbers to back that up.

      • Omega Z

        275 ppm is the average prior to civilization. This 275 is also historically low. The 400 ppm is the peak side. Not the average, so it has increased about 1/3rd. If you were to lower CO2 to about 200 ppm for a prolonged period of time, Oxygen levels would drop. A mere 3% drop in oxygen levels would eliminate the possibility of fire.

        Aerosols- Water Vapor is #3 on the UN’s list should CO2 & Natural Gas be nullified by technology. This agenda is not going away until they control everything you think say or do.

        • Mark Underwood

          Taking a closer look at the graphs yes 275ppm is a bit low on the low side. It was more like 280ppm. 🙂

          Our current CO2 peaks above 400ppm ; the average is now, what, something like 397ppm. No matter, it will average 400ppm in two years. My “doubling” term was clearly in error, my apologies. It is more like a 400/280 which is a 1.43 times increase.

          Gosh I seriously doubt that dropping 3 percent in oxygen would eliminate the possibility of fire. It may reduce the scope of forest fires somewhat.

          Natural gas *is* about CO2 emissions, so I don’t understand why you are making a distinction between them? And I don’t understand why the UN would have “water vapor” on their “list”. They would be concerned about potable water, however.

    • Omega Z

      Some time ago I read a UN report.

      CO2, If someone finds a fix for CO2, Natural Gas is next on the list.
      Natural Gas, If someone finds a fix for Natural Gas, Aerosols are next on the list.
      E-cat technology can fix the CO2 & Natural Gas issues.
      Aerosols- Water Vapor is #3 on the UN’s list.
      They are having trouble with the details on how to sell it to the masses, but they are working on it.

      This is all about wealth transfer by way of a carbon tax. In the upcoming UN climate change meeting, the discussion will focus on transferring 100 Billion$ annually to the developing & undeveloped countries around the world from the developed countries. Preliminary discussion taking place as of now is how to force that guaranteed transfer of wealth. This is not the stuff of conspiracies. It is scattered in topics among the Mainstream press. Note: In a few years this amount is meant to be doubled to 200 Billion$.
      Other news of note. Due to the type of coal China has been burning, their coal plants have been producing 50% less CO2 then officially claimed leading to a 10% net less world CO2 production for at least a dozen years.

      In addition, A team using a new highly accurate algorithm & using NASA’s Satelite data, has been determined that there is about 17.5 times more trees(Carbon sink) then originally thought. From the previous 400 Billion to 7 Trillion. The response from the Climate commitee. “So what. These issues mean nothing”.

      Evidently, their computer climate models don’t require real world data. Of course, that means they also don’t put out real world data.

      Curious only the working class has to suffer from this agenda. Perhaps, Private yachts & private Jets should be banned. And the Airlines should eliminate the 1st class section. Make these elitists travel like the common folk.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Vassela

  • LION

    Thank you Vessela, may your friendship with Andria Rossi always remain warmhearted, the interview is informative and I agree with Andrias’ position about Global warming- His position is a moral and responsible one, while remaining openminded.