Rossi: Public Services Could Help E-Cat X Overcome Regulatory Obstacles

Andrea Rossi was asked by a reader of the Journal of Nuclear Physics when we might be able to see his the E-Cat X used by the general public, taking into account the likely regulatory restrictions that will be imposed.

Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi

Italo R.:
I hope 2 years. But, while tech depends on us, regulations and certifications don’t. Applications managed by a public service could be easier to certify, though, since the operation would be controlled by certified professionals. Therefore the “dream” could be eased.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So here we see a possible tactic revealed by Rossi: get a public service on you side to manage the implementation of E-Cat X technology, and you might have an easier time with certification, and be able to ease in the technology. In the ‘dream’ Rossi wrote about yesterday, he saw a network of E-Cats being used for street lighting, and conduits carrying heat and electricity to residences. This setup would necessarily have to involve a local government and/or a public utility to implement and coordinate the deployment of this technology.

How easy would it be to find a ‘friendly’ local government to get involved in such a project? I would guess it might not too hard to find some municipalities that want to stand out and show that they are technologically and environmentally advanced, and willing to break new ground with LENR technology, when it is ready for the marketplace. But even in that case I don’t know how difficult regulatory approval might be. With an unknown technology like this there will certainly be concerns over safety and durability, and a track record will likely need to be demonstrated before any governmental body will feel comfortable proposing the E-Cat be used widely for residential purposes.

On a related topic, I know there are many people (including me) who hope that the E-Cat X would be suitable for off-grid living, and I asked Rossi a question about this. Here is my question and response:

I hope that your vision might be adjustable to meet the needs of rural dwellers. One critically important aspect of the E-Cat, in my opinion, is that it could make possible affordable energy production for people who live in remote areas of the world where an existing energy infrastructure is not already well developed.

Andrea Rossi
January 1st, 2016 at 4:31 PM
Frank Acland,
I think that in remote areas there are other technologies more fit.
Warm Regards
A.R.

So this makes it sound like in Rossi’s mind, the E-Cat X would not be suitable for providing electricity in remote places where the grid does not exist. I think he still considers a reliable source of electricity (grid-supplied) to be necessary for the safe operation of the E-Cat.

However, I’m not sure that we should be limited by the imagination of the inventor when we think of possible applications and implementation of the E-Cat. It seems to me that if the technology works as claimed, that many creative ways could be developed to adapt it to all kinds of needs and implementations. I would not expect there to be insurmountable hurdles to getting self-looped systems to work, either. Energy storage devices like capacitors and batteries (with multiple backups) could be used to make sure that there is a reliable source of electricity to drive the E-Cats.

  • Brent Buckner

    Frank wrote: “How easy would it be to find a ‘friendly’ local government to get involved in such a project?”

    Hey, imagine putting that together with the Epcot suggestion – the entire Walt Disney World power plant could convert to LENR. It’s run by Disney’s own municipality – Reedy Creek Improvement District (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District ).

  • Optimist

    Yes you are right, muons do behave like shortlived fast heavy electrons and are as such containable in electric field and can therefore also be used for direct electric generation. They can however also cause nuclear fusion if they take the place of electron in D2. So from functionality point of view they are very useful but from safety perspective not as welcome. The delemma that the safety certification authority has to deal with is that even if Rossi is still healthy after a year in the container, as long as the process is not fully understood, they know how it performs but don’t know how the process will fail. They do however know from Mats Lewan book and the Holmlid/Olafsson paper that particle radiation is a facta under some undefined circumstance. In industry application or community owned structure the necessary precautions can be made but for domestic application this can be very difficult to guarantee. I hope I’m wrong on this as domestic reactors would be great but it would also not be the end of the world to place it underground outside the home.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    The problem is not how or even whether the E Cat is in coming to the market. The problem is that we are reaching a historical bottleneck of problems so enormous, caused by fundamentalism combined with willful ignorance. Looking at the presidential race in the US brings little solace.
    North Korea just tested a mini-H, in a civilization deemed to lag five decades with comparison to the Western world. Can the micro-nukes existence be now denied, after Dr Busby’s evidence on the fields and having been kept as secret as possible by the press http://www.chris.busby.exposed/?
    So is CF is a sophisticated subject, we human beings in our behaviour are the real barrier to its development.
    http://www.chris.busby.exposed/all-the-videos/

  • Omega Z

    Rossi should focus on building reactors of various sizes optimized for different needs. Let others worry about how to deploy the technology.

    Certification: Let someone like Siemens, GE or 1 of many others build CHP systems or whatever. Certification will happen as a formality. It will not be a problem. They have decades of experience.

    If Boeing goes to get an airplane certified, It is just a formality.
    IF I who have no experience tries to get an airplane certified,
    Well?? Need I say more.

    Even using a new Technology(LENR), These large entities will have a far easier time of it. Those who provide certification immediately assume they did their due diligence. Far fewer questions will be asked.

  • Omega Z

    I took 4 sets of 10KWh X-cats, electronic controls, converters & a single 5KW Tesla battery to a villiage of 200 people. I sat this all up in the center of the villiage as a micro-grid and said abracadabra. You now have electricity.

    They thanked me. Then asked, what shall we do with it.

    We have no wiring in our homes. No outlets, lights, switches, no electric appliances of any kind. And we have no money to pay for all these things.

    It then occured to me that in my exuberance for this technology, I had not really thought this through. Perhaps the detractors were right. This is going to take a at least a generation of transition. Energy is just 1 piece of the puzzle. It is going to take the collaboration of many people & nations many years to bring the benefits of this technology to the world.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      They would still benefit immensely without the wires and switches. Battery powered devices such as LED lanterns, mobile phones and radios, even when centrally charged, would be a huge boon to them.

      • Omega Z

        There are places where people make pennies a day. They would need people to donate them batteries and LED’s. Even dirt cheap energy costs money. It will take a long time to transform.

    • Skip

      To support your story…

      A little (but true) story of my own;

      A couple of decades ago, I went to Cuba with a friend a who had contacts there. We went to the family cottage in a remote fishing village. The cottage was beside a repair site for fish boats; it didn’t deserve to be called a shipyard. They had enough electricity to run a homebuilt welder when critical for the fish boats. Other than that, there was a streetlight that was installed outside of the cottage, and the powered cottage itself. No one had wiring in their houses (huts) but when the cottage was built and the power to build and supply it was installed, the neighbouring houses “adjusted” the walls facing the streetlight to allow light through the boards. The improvement to their lives, thanks to the streetlight and holes in the walls, was reportedly huge…

      It’s hard to assign our first world thinking to places and societies that have third world issues.

    • builditnow

      I’m friends with a Masai tribal warrior (Africa). He told me that he implemented a simple solar system that replaced the kerosene lamps in their huts. This saved about a gallon of kerosene a year per hut, not much. It’s based on a single light in the middle of the hut, a single 12 volt deep cycle boat battery and single solar panel. This is a little better than the lamp, better for evening chores and allows for the charging of cell phones. Most everyone in the tribe has cell phones and internet via these phones. There is plenty of dead fallen wood for heating and cooking. No need for refrigeration, all food is fresh.

      However, the villages nearby, more like modern urbanization but very low income, have a much more intensive energy requirement. They cut down trees for wood. They need refrigeration and transport.
      Villages could certainly figure out how to use a 5 or 10kW electric generator that was inexpensive to run, progressively, over time. They could immediately use a 1kW heater for cooking and heating that also produced a few 100 watts of electricity. Rossi’s system is not ready for this yet as he still requires a reliable source of consider input power.

      Each situation will be unique, only understood, hands on with the locals.
      However, once the word is out, the solutions will come.

      Before the Wright brothers flew publicly, near Paris, there were few lone experimenters working on heavier than air flight, for about 5 years after the Wright brothers first flew. One year after this flight it was estimated that 7 million people were working on aircraft, and that’s when most people still walked or rode horses.

      It all depends on when the public chooses or is allowed to wake up to LENR.

      • Omega Z

        You’ll notice in my little story, tho not explained was to power the e-cats by way of a micro grid. I think 3 would be minimum. But I agree, every situation will be different. Should E-cats ever become reasonably feasible for off grid home use, they to will be different with each installation.

  • Anon2012_2014

    I’m questioning the public utility light pole + waste heat approach because the infrastructure cost to convert an entire city will run into the billions. The device needs to be small and self contained (even if IN a power plant) to keep the capital cost down. Look at the City of Birmingham Alabama that went bankrupt installing sewage pipes.

    If Ecat-X works, it needs to be sold on a small and large scale. If it is economically superior, entrepreneurs will buy them and then install them without getting a city counsel to vote.

    Several posters have mentioned for home heating, lighting, and electricity. That scale is great as there will always be environmentally conscious “first adopters” who can afford to pay 3X to stop environmental pollution and to get off “the grid”.

    Rome gets built one home at a time this way.

  • ecatworld

    Interesting comment regarding Miami:

    S HAYNESWORTH
    January 3rd, 2016 at 5:11 PM

    Miami – is now the second most entrepreneurial city in the U.S,
    with the highest startup density in the country.

    http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/03/miami-tech/

    Andrea Rossi

    January 3rd, 2016 at 5:47 PM

    S. Haynesworth,
    I am not surprised to hear that.
    Miami is an extremely friendly place for enterpreneurs that want to work here. Here you can also find all the professional help you need. It is a blessing to work here.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    • georgehants

      Also interesting that Florida is the tenth most corrupt State in the US, so still a good chance of bribing officials to steam roller over ordinary people.
      ———
      New research takes a look at decades of corruption convictions to find the crookedest states in the union.
      When we think of government corruption (as one tends to
      do), our biased minds often gravitate to thoughts of military juntas
      and third world governments. But, of course, corruption is everywhere,
      in one form or another. And it’s costing U.S. citizens big time.
      A new study from researchers at the University of Hong Kong and Indiana University
      estimates that corruption on the state level is costing Americans in the
      10 most corrupt states an average of $1,308 per year, or 5.2% of those
      states’ average expenditures per year.
      The researchers studied more than 25,000 convictions of public officials
      for violation of federal corruption laws between 1976 and 2008 as well
      as patterns in state spending to develop a corruption index that
      estimates the most and least corrupt states in the union. Based on this
      method, the the most corrupt states are:
      1. Mississippi
      2. Louisiana
      3. Tennessee
      4. Illinois
      5. Pennsylvania
      6. Alabama
      7. Alaska
      8. South Dakota
      9. Kentucky
      10. Florida

      • Pekka Janhunen

        OT: “What are UFOs? New Study Aims to Find Out”, http://m.space.com/31067-what-are-ufos-new-study.html

        Some kind of crowdfunding effort to set up an automated camera network to collect data on UFOs.

        • georgehants

          Pekka, many thanks for your interest, will just clarify that I have no particular belief in UFO’s beyond the Fact that when the honest Evidence is competently investigated, the case for something Factual is clear and undeniable to any fair-minded person.
          It is the endemic incompetence based on a religious denial of anything beyond establishment Dogma in science, be that Cold Fusion or Fairy’s that I am highlighting.
          I am amazed at the number of so called scientists who actually believe themselves to be intelligent, yet are simply, because of the establishment brain-washing, unable to hold a discussion on that said evidence.
          They are taken over with a deep fear and can only respond with debunking, denial and trying to hide their incompetence with stupid copycat humour, little green men for instance.
          This incompetence and ignorance is destroying any possibility of science being taken seriously.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed. (Real) science walks a narrow path, on the theoretical side looms dogma, on the applied edge loom short-term commercial interests. Kind of Skylla and Charybdis, between which Odysseus had to navigate the ship.

            • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

              May I just add: if most scientists base their analyses and focus their behaviour on being in the ‘in’ crowd, fearing professional ostracism, then what should one think of the ‘civil servant’s efficiency? What are the characteristics of the entity which is supposed to be competent (and unbiased) enough to evaluate a scientist’s work to stamp the OK on the public compliance and safety certificate?

              • Pekka Janhunen

                An important parameter is how much intelligence it requires to verify the result of the science in question. There are enormous differences in this regard. For example, engineering science has produced the smartphone. Even the dumbest civil servant and politician can see that it works. (Hopefully the E-cat will also fall in this category in the future.) Another example: economic theory. In this case, no one can verify the result.

                • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

                  OK. My fear is the next barrier: economic interest. Also, the trade off between honesty and the fear for the position, the job, or the professional risk. Hopefully, the introduction of the E-cat device will be as swift (swifter, if electricity and heat are more basic needs than communication) as it has been for the smartphone.

  • Sean

    I am holding out for distribution of a personal ECAT unit. The alternative mentioned by Rossie, is the distribution of LENR by your friendly greedy utility company who knows very well how to price it. Believe you me they will price it good, er, very good indeed. A big selling point is (“Clean Energy”) So price this up a little more lets say. Well who will be in charge now. Ha Ha back to same old same old but with more profit and fat bonuses. Oh and they get to keep up those ugly overhead National grid power lines. I sometimes think about the way the oil giants pump oil out of the ground. Other than the cost of drilling and distributing this dirty product, the earth gave it up for free. We did not make this hydrocarbon. The price will then be dependant on market demand and by government. Unless this technology is made available to all for individuals, the buck stops here. Owning your own ECAT was the original dream of many here. I personally would like to pay the inventors / engineers for their hard work and continuous development before anyone else. Hey but that’s big business as usual. Lets hope that we can get a small Ecat for our homes and cars. Also for less fortunate country’s that have the need to improve their lives.

  • theBuckWheat

    To all the people who want more government, here is the effect of more government. And you can bet that those who hate human progress and who are embarrassed by our prosperity will not hesitate to mount a “lawfare” offensive against LENR. It promises to upset a lot of power dynamics. It may even kill the golden goose that some environmental groups live off. Now of course none of this changes what a wonderful thing LENR is and this high honor that must be given to the first commercially viable LENR products.

  • f sedei

    You are correct, Frank. One step at a time. Get E-Cat on the market and it will take off like a rocket (LENR fueled).

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi January 3rd, 2016 at 8:27 AM
    Richard Wade:
    Here are “ballpark” figures, to be worked upon:
    Cost of the E-Cat X/kW: 50 $, payback time 90 days
    Cost of the water piping to distribute the heat in an urban neighborhood: average 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
    Cost of the light 10 $/kW, payback time 10 days
    Cost of the cabling to distribute the electric energy 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
    Total cost of the “network system” : 2 years and 4 months
    Expected lifespan of the system: 15 years
    Potential market, considering to serve 1 billion people: 3 billion kWh/h
    Potential E-Cat market, limited to this sector of employment: 1.5 trillions of $
    Now, let’s wake up, shake off the dreams and put down to work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • artefact

      The numbers suggest that the price for energy will become so low that only hardware and work done by humans will be really relevant.
      Over time the hardware costs will also decrease as the energy is chap to make them (the network system etc.). Robots and automation will further decrease costs.

  • malkom700

    China has the greatest need for the LENR technology. The technology transfer would create immediate competition between the states, because can not allow the any state to gain a technological advantage.

  • Agaricus

    Most local authorities here in the UK are so strapped for cash that they have difficulties keeping the roads in working order. They are certainly in no position to replace the street lighting with some kind of CHP system.

    The National Grid is similarly constrained and wouldn’t be able to implement a changeover to distributed systems and CHP without massive government assistance. As the current set of politicians seem hell bent on destroying all alternatives to centralised nuclear power, the latter seems rather unlikely, at least until these people are just a bad memory.

  • Gerard McEk

    What we do not know is the requirements that are needed to make the E-Cat X run. When it is true that it can produce e.g. 250 W electricity plus 250 W heat (in its most E-power setting) than I would think street lighting is not the best suitable application, because you throw away 250 W of heat. Distribution of this heat is costly and will not easily implemented in public services.
    I think it is strange that the device cannot easily be used in a self looped system according Rossi. As an electrical engineer I cannot understand that any electrical source, however abnormal and unreliable it behaves, cannot be ‘tamed’ for being suitable to drive an E-Cat.
    What concerns me are the ‘safety requirements’. It seems to me that AR does not want these E-cats near to people. We should know how serious these issues are.
    We are missing some important information which has made AR made decide to not use the E-Cat X for the most obvious application: supplying heat, light and electricity to homes and the industry!

    • artefact

      Maybe he does not want people to be able to play around with it.

    • henk

      If I remember well, a self looped system was not acceptable to UL because of fear for a system runaway when the primary power was missing. Rossi has mentioned in the past that that could be dangerous, without specifying the danger. Mats Lewan mentions in his excellent book a situation when Rossi drove a reactor to its extreme and neutrons were detected. This will and must scare any regulating body.
      The requirement for an independent power source to avoid a melt down seems also valid for nuclear power plants. Even then things can go wrong, as was neatly demonstrated in Fukushima where the backup diesel generators were installed in the basement which flooded instantly when the tsunami struck.
      Like you I am an electric engineer and know that technically there is no problem.
      But that is not the issue. As long as there is no generally accepted theory how the E-Cat works, and a long track record of many, many operating hours, no certification agency will issue a safety permit for an general purpose E-Cat.
      And do not bet on the Chinese, they also have safety regulations. The problem in China is not regulation but control and enforcement.
      So Rossi and IH are very wise to pursue industrial applications first. It will be many years before we can install a UL approved E-Cat in our basements.

      • Gerard McEk

        If there is any possibility that the Ecat could emit neutrons or any dangerous radiation, Then you are right, that it will be very unlikely that they will be used in households indeed. Even using them in public areas is impossible. Active protection to avoid it is also not acceptable in those areas. I guess we have to wait for the theories to enable a development of an passive fail-safe system, if your comment is true.

        • Optimist

          If you recall last summer publications by prof Sveinn Olafsson and prof Leif Holmlid and the slides of the presentation of prof Sveinn Olafsson at SRI last October they did demonstrate repeatedly active lenr reactions based on Rindberg matter formation by measuring particle flight time. The result was clear, they observed both muons and higher energy leptons being formed. The presence of muons is well known to cause nuclear fusion with the same byproducts as regular hot fusion including the radiation. It would make sence that the LENR process by Rossi and Holmlid/Olafsson are at least related so nuclear particles should be expected in both cases. So maybe placing the reactors outside the homes and regulating them by some official party is not a bad idea?

        • US_Citizen71

          From what I have gathered from Rossi’s comments in order to reach the point that neutrons could be produced you have to push the reactor like you would an IC engine in formula one car, ie to the very limits of its survivability.

    • US_Citizen71

      Wasted heat is not a good excuse not to do it. Current 600-1000W sodium vapor lights which are the current standard for street lighting dump more than 250W worth of heat to the air right now with no production of electricity but instead consume the 600-1000W that they are rated for.

      As for safety it has been discussed ad nauseum that if you can produce more electricity than needed to run the reaction you can run it via a battery that is charged via the output. The self looping that was originally discussed when Rossi gave his answer was essentially concerning running straight leads back into the E-Cat which would be akin to running any high powered piece of equipment with a self latching relay, not a smart thing to do. A shutdown switch is all that is needed to cut the power. Runaways could be prevented simply by making a plug in the side of the reactor housing that melts and vents the hydrogen to the atmosphere killing the reaction due to lack of fuel and vacuum.

    • Giuliano Bettini

      An old doubt. It seems “certification issues”.

      Italo R.
      January 3rd, 2016 at 12:01 PM
      Dear dr. Rossi, is it possible to use the electricity supplied by E-Cat-X to charge batteries? I think it is possible without problems.
      If so, it should be also possible use these batteries to power back the same E-Cat-X or other E-Cats, after the appropriate necessary electric conversion.
      Having always a charged battery, the security should be ensured. Or not?
      Kind Regards
      Italo R.

      Andrea Rossi
      January 3rd, 2016 at 12:24 PM
      Italo R.:
      Certification issues are not that simple.
      Of course you can charge batteries, though.
      Warm Regards
      A.R.

    • Omega Z

      The current system on average wastes 2/3rds of its heat creating electricity. If the X-cat only wastes 1/2, this is a large improvement. i.e., Instead of a power plant producing 3 Gigawatts of heat to provide us 1 Gigawatt of electricity, we would only need 2 Gigawatt of heat to produce 1 Gigawatt of electricity. A full 1/3rd of current heat production could be eleminated.

      As to looping, it can’t be X-cat to itself. At the very least you will need a battery, the converter etc. Also, for a stand alone off grid system. You need to allow for peak periods of demand. It will be costly and most of the time very wasteful*.

      *Note this “very wasteful” factor may be Rossi’s concern about stand alone off grid. The waste factor makes it uneconomical… You have excess capacity most of the time and a lot of waste heat.

      When it was just about the 10KW e-cat, I thought some of the time I have excess heat. Tho at that scale I was thinking only of economic factor as the waste heat wouldn’t be that bad. However, there was a 30 day spell where I would have needed 30KW of heat just to keep the temperature above 65` F in my home.

      OK, That rarely happens, but I need to plan for those rare peak situations. Everyone does or at least should. That is the positive of Fossil energy. I pay only for what I need when I need it. Or if I’m stupid, what I waste. With the way E-cats work, I pay for energy needed or not. Just like wind/solar.

      That brings us to Rossi. He shouldn’t be concerned with how this technology is deployed. He should focus on optimising the E-cat for usability. He needs a variety of devices. 1,2,5,10,15 Kilowatt reactors. Optimised for different uses. One size fits all will not work. At least not economically

      Rossi has said the X-cat can be built as 1KWh reactors & that they can ramp up quickly. Yes. Give me 25/30 of those as a Furnace replacement. I can activate them 1 at a time as needed. I’m back to thermostat control paying only for what energy I use. In addition, half of those reactors will see very little use. They will last a lifetime.

      For electricity needs, It is likely a localized grid would be the most cost effective. There is a huge gap between minimum use & peak periods individually. Being off grid will not be cheap.

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree with most of your words Omega Z. Using the Ecat as only An E-power source can be improved by converting the heat in electricity also. Because of the high temperature this is still possibly with an reasonable efficiency. The total conversion efficiency may be as high as 80%.
        I must say that I do not like the idea that you simply waste usuable heat, but I admit that this may happen, just because the cost of energy becomes so low. The consequente may be that in the (far) future the waste heat causes overheating of the earth, just as we experience now.

        • Omega Z

          There will always be waste heat. It’s inevitable. But if you get to 50%, that’s a big improvement over the present. Also if you can utilize most of that heat in the winter is even better.

          Some years ago during a harsh winter & everyone was paying $300+ heating bills, I did some work on an underground home. Out of curiosity I asked what it cost them for heat. They said $50. I said, You know that’s great for a months heating bill. No, they said, That’s the whole winter bill…

          We have technology today to build underground in a manner that don’t feel like your underground. And the materials are cheaper then conventional buildings. Problem is those who build them charge a lot more.

          Anyway, To reduce waste, one needs to reduce his energy needs to begin with. Even with LENR, we need to keep working on efficiency.

  • Ophelia Rump

    There is water and sewage processing which must have heavy energy requirements. It would be useful for public housing and municipal buildings. Major highway lighting is probably easily isolated.These things are ubiquitous.

    Street lights might be too integrated into the electrical distribution system. Providing heat to homes municipally would be an entirely new endeavor. I just do not see it.

    • Ryan

      I think desalinization would also be a huge thing for this sort of technology and very much needed. And recycling of all sorts of materials. Costly now due to energy/heat requirements but we could sift through our massive garbage dumps and reclaim a lot of materials for reuse if the energy/heat requirements weren’t as costly.

      As for distributed electricity and heat, they could set up micro grids. You wouldn’t be getting entire cities, making it easier to do, and thus could phase them in over time and thus slowly take out the need for larger grids and in turn make it more difficult for widespread issues that a centralized grid that covers much larger areas have.

    • NT

      “Are we already seeing the beginning of a hijacking of the technology in order to keep the technology proprietary to utilities?”

      A scary but possible scenario as the concerns must be mounting from TPTB. I hope we hear soon on IH’s plans for the e-cat they have licensed…

    • Alberonn

      You’re so right : we hear echo’s of J.P.Morgan’s comment to Tesla :”Where do I put the meter ?!” Big banks and Big oil, who have by now conveniantly shorted their interests in fossil will take over, when this dream of Dottore Rossi comes true… humanity in fetters and chains again… replicators of the world : unite !

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I think you are right, about governmental applications. Madison Wisconsin’s sewerage processing plants already use anerobic digester-derived methane to run engines for aeration of the waste stream. Waste heat from the engines is used to maintain an elevated temperature for anerobic digesters. The resultant digested solids is used for fertilizer. The facility also has a waste heat-driven air conditioning system for the operations building. Rossi’s E-Cat X could provide the electric power and combined heat for all of these functions.

      There are several non-governmental uses that could benefit from LENR technology. Combined light and heat would allow food production year round in colder climates. One of the community anerobic digesters in the Madison area has an experimental phosphorous removal system using photo synthetic algae. It requires extended light exposure in the daylight-short portions of the year. LED lighting from the E-Cat X power would help to grow these plants. There are a number of algae-derived biofuels that could also be produced and that could benefit from heat and light derived from LENR technology.