Tom Darden, Elon Musk and Other Tech Leaders Urge California to Push VW for More Electric Cars (VicB2B)

This comment was submitted by VicB2B

Looks like E-Cat & Industrial Heat investor Tom Darden joined his friends Elon Musk, Michael Brune & Carl Pope at Sierra Club, and a buncha enviro VCs, to get Volkswagon to build more electric cars. Darden sure runs with a crowd of greenies with big dough! Which make him a good guy to be supporting Mr. Rossi and the E-Cat.

http://www.takepart.com/open-letter-to-california-air-resources-board-chairman-mary-nichols

An Excerpt:

“A giant sum of money thus will be wasted in attempting to fix cars that cannot all be fixed, and where the fix may be worse than the problem if the cars are crushed well before the end of their useful lives. We, the undersigned, instead encourage the CARB to show leadership in directing VW to “cure the air, not the cars” and reap multiples of what damage has been caused while strongly advancing California’s interests in transitioning to zero emission vehicles . . .

“In contrast to the punishments and recalls being considered, this proposal would be a real win for California emissions, a big win for California jobs, and a historic action to help derail climate change.

“The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW.”

  • jousterusa

    Mary Perot Nichols, the head of the CARB, is a good friend of mine, and yet even I am stunned by her eloquence and wisdom in her approach to VW’s transgressions against the air quality regime. Californians are fortunate to have someone of such high intelligence and great compassion at their service.

  • Alain Samoun

    LENR can bring a lot of problems in the US military,especially with the people in charge of buying the fossil fuels= A big business and probably a good place to be for some.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-08/pentagon-oil-spending-may-snarl-efforts-to-trim-490b

  • HS61AF91

    OK, to sum up, VW should buy and install E-cat X’s and Stirling engines, maybe order a couple of thousand of each for engineering into their new cars. Get their reputation back, get the world on the way to free societies without the need to fight for resources, and eliminate the path to LENR cars going through a battery side road.

    • jousterusa

      Excellent idea – it just might work!

  • georgehants
    • Rui Germano

      I am mistaken or all they presented are rendered images of what they intend to build ?

  • Frechette

    I’m all for developing better batteries but Lithium Ion technology should be abandoned in favor of a safer and less expensive chemistry. As long as EVs have a maximum range of 100 miles, with charging times of hours, costing an arm and a leg these vehicles are always going to be a niche product. A hundred years ago EVs using lead acid cells had about the same range as today’s cars.

    • GreenWin

      The Chevy VOLT is a hybrid with 53m EV range before the ICE kicks in – EPA rating of 106MPG-e. Average commutes for N. America are under 40m/day. VOLT and hybrids from Ford, Honda, Toyota are all selling for $25k after tax credits for low emission vehicles.

      Tesla 2016 Model S ($77k msrp) gets 101MPG-e.

      • Warthog

        Around my area (Pacific NW, just across Puget Sound from Tacoma), I am seeing a LOT of Nissan Leafs. Far more than other all-electrics. Perhaps that is simply due to the unique styling, but I think not. At least one person with whom I share a zip code has a Tesla (saw it when picking up mail at the local PO). Definitely a “hot-looking” vehicle.

        • Gerald

          Die someone have a good look at some used Tesla cars? A month ago I’ve used one and it drove very nice, the torque from the electric engines is addictive but the way the car was build was cheap and sloppy. If you look past the big tablet the rest of the dashboard were cheap materials. It not near a 80.000 euro car like a BMW Audi or Volvo.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, this is quite a smart suggestion by Darden. While I am not much of a believer of electric cars, the simple issue is why fine VW billions of dollars and spend billions to fix those existing
    cars? It not like they are gross polluters or anything. (and worse, the tweaks were to reduce CO2 which I don’t consider a pollution – by forcing automakers to reduce harmless CO2 output, the NOx and a whole bunch of REALLY bad pollutantsgo way up! – really stupid – in a way VW did the right thing!).

    At the end of the day, having VW scrap such cars, or spend billions to fix something that NEVER really going to impact air pollution, why not swing a deal and have VW pour that billions into electric cars? That way for the billions spent, you do increase adoption of cars that
    reduce pollution by MORE than spending the same money fixing perfectly good
    cars. And a bunch of fines do little to help the industry, but fill government pockets.

    So have VW throw the SAME money at some electric cars – and VW can actually
    walk away making money at the same time.

    And as for a LENR powered car? I think Segway invent Dean Karman has the right idea by simply installing a sterling engine that replaces “most” of the battery requirements:

    Dean explains WHY this is good idea here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-MT2-aYb3I

    I betting the first LENR powered car will use a sterling. However, it much depends on how efficient the ecat-x can convert heat into electric – you may well not need the sterling engine.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • GreenWin

      Agree Al. And somewhere in the New Fire shadows we will find Dean Kamen and his Beacon 10 Stirling engine. Remember just a few years ago, Dottore Rossi ran a business not far from Kamen’s New Hampshire Deka Research company.

    • Omega Z

      Are people not buying electric cars because there is a shortage.

      It’s simple. If there was more demand for electric cars, the manufactures would build more of them. There would be no need for pressuring VW. You can build all the electric cars you want, but you can’t make people buy them.

      Also, It isn’t just about building more battery manufacturing plants(Which are not cheap), but opening more lithium mines which on average can take 15 years. Mexico is opening up such a mine of which Elon Musk has negotiated a below market value arrangement. Part of his plan for cheaper batteries is to suppress the Mexican workers wages.

      As to Sterling engines, their simplicity makes them interesting, but their efficiency among other issues make them not very practical. If they were practical, current power plants would utilize them. And utilities have spent a lot of resources studying them.

      Consider, You and I look at a Sterling engine and a thermal electric generator & hands down we think the Sterling engine is the better choice. Utilities who think in economic terms find much more promise in the thermal electric generator.

      • GreenWin

        “Part of his plan for cheaper batteries is to suppress the Mexican workers wages.” That’s disturbing. Do you have a source for this?

        • Omega Z

          My Bad,
          I don’t have a link, but I read this about a month ago. It caught my interest because, You know- Elon Musk. Also it surprised me as there is a lithium operation setting up about 75 miles or so from the Mega plant.

          Anyway, I should have been more clear. I don’t know that it’s Elon Musk’s intention to suppress their wages, but that will be the likely outcome. If I’m a large fast food chain and approach a farm operation in Mexico to supply a major portion of my needs, I expect a major discount. This as a rule in Mexico, leads to suppressed wages & in many cases, reduced wages. If I’m aware of this, I assume Musk is or should be.

          I “REALLY” hope I’m wrong. I like people such as Musk with a forward looking Can Do attitude.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Actually, sterling engines are quit efficient. What the lack is power per weight ratio. So you don’t see a weed eater, or a lawn mower powered by sterling’s – it not that they lack efficiency, they lack power for a given size. (a big difference).

        Furthermore, the key concept in sterling is their low maintains.

        Large power plants don’t use sterling’s anymore then they use large gasoline powered engines. And such large power plants have a building the size of a city block and 50+ people running around maintaining the plant. So large systems bow out to the practicality of steam turbines

        So taking a car engine, or a small generator and scaling up such engines for large scale electric generation does not make sense.

        However, on a smaller scale – a consumer scale, or a device that produces electricity from available heat, sterling’s becomes a very good choice. At least until someone figures out some solid state device that converts heat into electricity. And as Dean shows, they make a lot of sense in a car.

        Even NASA is looking at using a sterling engine in place of thermo-electric for their space probes (due to so much higher power output).

        So it always a question of the right horse for the right course so to speak.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • LuFong

      VW defeat devices allowed them to output up to 40 times US Nitrogen Oxide limits. Nitrogen Oxide is a major pollutant producing smog and acid rain.

      This was what was first detected by independent testers. Later VW also admitted that their CO2 emissions were irregular.

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

    The economic need for LENR is obvious. The global warming/climate change need that Darden and the other green gurus worry about is still unproven. Their fear is based more on bandwagon effect and groupthink than science. I suppose you could also call it a global snowball effect, which was started to some degree by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a political ploy to get support for nuclear power in the United Kingdom.

    “The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.”

    Professor Mike van Biezen

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

    • GreenWin

      The comments on this article are quite funny. Especially the bold one from Rick. Surprising Prof van Biezen is tolerated on LA’s west side. LENR will do a better, more equitable job of raising standards of living than carbon taxes disappearing into government. IMO.

  • Alain Samoun

    I think that he has a lot of oil stocks 😉

  • Warthog

    Uh, it’s called a condenser, and pretty much every IC engine has one, though there is it called a “radiator”. “Mineral free” is easily accomplished by putting a mixed-bed ion exchange water purification cartridge in the line going to the condensor.

    • builditnow

      Agreed, no need for the old steam train approach. Most coal fired and nuclear power stations use the condenser approach via cooling tower, but, cheat by using a smaller condenser so they have to cool it using water, so, still end up using a lot of water, but, they don’t have to if they us a larger condenser and air cooling.

  • malkom700

    It can not suddenly introduce too many things at once because it is not realistic, should initially content with the production of heat and electricity production mainly for the power grid. I will personally be satisfied for the time being that much. Very good news is that the best minds of our time dealing with the issue.

    • georgehants

      malkom, how can “the best minds of our time dealing with the issue.” when the vast majority of those best minds, MFMP for example are not able to access the basic secrets of the technology.
      The speed of utilisation etc. is logically and obviously determined by the number of best minds able to work on the subject.
      That delay is being introduced for purely capitalistic and military reasons denying ordinary people the possible early utilization of Cold Fusion.

      • Warthog

        “That delay is being introduced for purely capitalistic and military
        reasons denying ordinary people the possible early utilization of Cold
        Fusion.

        Proof, please. The delay is caused by stupidity and jealousy (and to protect the research budgets of) hot fusion physicists. There is NO serious evidence that LENR even HAS unique “military reasons”.

        • georgehants

          Mr. Rossi announced that he was persuaded to “donate” a Cat to the military, still waiting for their announcement of the genuineness of Cold Fusion.
          Proof please that —- ” The delay is caused by stupidity and jealousy (and to protect the research budgets of) hot fusion physicists.”

          • Warthog

            Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat” provides more than sufficient proof. “Of course” the military would want to check out the e-CAT. Lack of response from them does not constitute proof of “military conspiracy” or indeed proof of anything.

            • georgehants

              Proof please— that this book contains Facts and not opinion

              • Warthog

                You will need to read it and see for yourself. And anybody with a serious interest in LENR “should” read it cover to cover.

                The sources Beaudette uses were more than sufficient to convince me. Of course, I also followed things “in real time” during the P & F fiasco, so I am able to match my knowledge with Beaudette’s sources. No disagreement.

                • georgehants

                  You mean your being “convinced” means something is True.
                  Please explain then why you believing is more believable than the 95% of scientists who are convinced Cold Fusion is a fraud.
                  Is not this circular rubbish good fun?
                  Goodbye

                • Warthog

                  “Please explain then why you believing is more believable than the 95% of scientists who are convinced Cold Fusion is a fraud.”

                  LOL…because I “am” a serious scientist (40 years practice, PhD chemist, coming up on thirty issued patents, three national science awards for inventions). I am more than qualified to be a reviewer of any serious LENR experimental paper. I’ve read many of the papers myself, and judged the evidence. Most of the “95% of scientists who are convinced Cold fusion is a fraud” are basing their viewpoints on “hearsay” evidence issuing from the same Departments of Physics that have hot fusion programs going, and have NOT studied the evidence.

                  You need to stop seeing circles where there are none.

                • malkom700

                  Use by the armed forces is likely to take the form of huge cost savings peacefully. The armed forces and also capitalism has some flaws but did not know better alternatives.

                • Warthog

                  Of course this is true. And it will enhance their field capabilities by reducing the load on fuel logistics for field electricity generation, and likely vehicle propulsion. But I don’t see that LENR currently has any “unique” military uses that are not served sufficiently well by fission. There may well turn out to be some….but at this point there is no evidence of such.

                • GreenWin

                  Warthog, thanks for your comments. The most obvious benefit to military (and commercial applications) is lack of ionizing radiation at energy densities similar to fission. This alone, e.g. in electric boat applications, makes LENR highly valuable to military.

                  Most human conflict centers around resource or religious differences. If we were to level standards of living – resource conflict diminishes. Remaining conflict requires non-violent respect for differing spiritual practice.

                • Warthog

                  True, but the presence of ionizing radiation is not a “show-stopper” to military use of nuclear energy as fission. Which is why I used the term “unique”. LENR would allow deployment into smaller vehicles, with huge advantages for logistics, and probably a bunch of battlefield tactical advantages that I am not cognizant to comment on. But I think most of the folks who worry about “military use of LENR” are concerned with something like a “hydrogen bomb equivalent” that would be all blast without all the radioactive fallout.

                  Things like vehicle propulsion would rapidly be applied in the civilian sector. For instance, if LENR can drive a tank, then it can also drive a long-haul delivery truck.

                • Omega Z

                  Warthog,
                  Only the U.S. Navy Carriers & Submarines are Nuclear. The rest of the Navy is fossil fueled. Also, all military installations would benefit from heat & electricity.

                • Warthog

                  True indeed, and the use of LENR would allow extension of nuclear propulsion to smaller units and shore/or deployed land systems. But there is no “unique” military advantage of LENR to the application(s)….just a shift of resources. See my response to Greenwin below for what I think folks real concern with “military use of LENR” is.

                • Omega Z

                  There is 1 advantage. The Military is starting to deploy lasers to be followed with rail-guns in the very near future. Both require a lot of electrical power. Also I think you will see water drones traveling along with every ship as underwater defense systems eliminating the threat of torpedoes or even an underwater scuba divers.

                • Warthog

                  Again, all true…but the rail guns and lasers are themselves quite large. For naval uses and platforms, fission already works. Field deployable units for land warfare are currently too large even for tanks…they have to be treated as artillery…mobile transport but stationary in use.

                  And many folks don’t realize that it is quite feasible to build much smaller fission reactors (for, for instance, sea drone use). The fuel just needs a much higher percentage of U-235 or the fissionable plutonium equivalent. Such small reactors have long been part of the NASA technology base. They are not deployed widely in space usage due to fear of launch failure dispersing fuel particles into the ecosystem. IIRC, the reactors are “supposed” to be designed to survive a free fall from orbit and earth impact without destroying the fuel elements. That latter fear, of course, does not exist for sea drones.

                • Omega Z

                  Lasers have recently leapfrogged.

                  They are bypassing the 15KW and may start deploying the 30KW laser by the end of 2016. The latest 30KW laser is impressive. It no longer takes several seconds to burn through, but is near instantaneous. Can take out 5 targets in 5 seconds & can even track/lock & take out RPG’s.

                  The laser & power supply will fit on a single Humvee with driver & 1 crew member. It looks much like a Humvee with a 50 cal mounted on it. This is 5 years ahead of schedule. In fact, in 5 years & maybe less they expect to have all weather 150KW lasers ready to deploy.

                  Note: I don’t claim this has anything to do with LENR, but Something is going on in the dark behind closed doors. NASA has been given new marching orders. Things seem to be preparing to accelerate & these plans would require lots of dependable energy.

                • Warthog

                  Gotta admit that it has been a while since I last reviewed military laser research. Learning all the new stuff about LENR has sort of pushed it aside.

                  Maybe NASA getting “one-upped” by SpaceX and Blue Origin has stung their collective ego a bit…..

                • Alain Samoun

                  The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

                  Does this fact explains many things?

                • Omega Z

                  “The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.”

                  No. It is not. But it makes for a good sound bite.
                  It is the largest single payer purchaser of energy(All sources of energy) in the U.S. with a budget of $20 Billion dollars for the combined Air force, Army, Navy, Marines and National guard and all their bases world wide. All payable from a Government account. Note the U.S. has the 5th largest standing army.

                • Alain Samoun

                  OK then FORBES,among others sources, like “good sound bit”
                  Who is the single payer of oil in the world then?
                  http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/05/mileage-military-vehicles-tech-logistics08-cz_ph_0605fuel.html

                • Omega Z

                  During the periods in the articles(Pulling hardware out of Iraq), Probably they did make #1. But that is not the norm. Probably China’s military is #1 in normal conditions. Their Military is much larger then the U.S..

                  However, If you want to lump groups together, Consider the U.S. airlines. Tomorrow at 9:00 AM, you’ll find 6K/8K planes in the air all at the same time. Over 15,000 flights everyday of the year. They dwarf the U.S. Military.
                  Regardless, I don’t know where they got their numbers. I got mine from the DOD budget.

                • georgehants

                  Warthog I will reply one last time to your reply’s to me.
                  If you cannot stick to Facts and self-evident logic in your reply’s but continue to respond with ideology and unfounded trouble making circular opinion I will desist.
                  ——
                  I have no interest in your qualifications as obviously the 95% of scientists that debunk Cold Fusion without looking at the Evidence you mention are similarly qualified, proving that qualifications mean nothing beyond the minuscule areas of their particular “expertise.
                  Do you agree with my Logic?
                  You are responding to my original post.
                  Do you agree that Mr. Rossi seemingly and possibly passed on his knowledge to the military?
                  Do you agree that the military have not and almost certainly based on past Evidence will not reveal any of their Research findings?
                  Do you agree that a patent is a capitalistic device to protect knowledge being used by the likes of MFMP etc. to copy the patented technology and freely use it for the benefit of mankind without profit?
                  That is what my comment said and unless you have some Factual objection and not opinion based on your irrelevancy qualifications please first agree with my Facts and only then if you wish add your ideological slant.
                  Thank you

                • Warthog

                  I agree with none of your points as being either “facts” or “self-evident logic”, but it would take far more time than it is worth to debunk them all in depth.

                  I will address ONE….the idea that a patent is a evil capitalist device to protect knowledge from being duplicated by “more worthy” groups. They are not, and never have been.

                  Patents FAR predated the establishment of capitalism, and in fact date to the “age of monarchy”. The kings of the time devised the idea of “letters patent” TO PROTECT THE INVENTOR. The reason the monarchs did so was to keep important inventions from getting lost to society, as had happened repeatedly when inventors kept their inventions wholly as trade secrets, and then died unexpectedly and before commercializing them. The idea of “patent” was to guarantee the inventor a total monopoly for a finite period of time in exchange for fully publishing the necessary detail to reproduce the invention. Another inventor (or evil corporation) could not produce the patented technology UNLESS they were able to come up with a “unique and non-obvious” difference from the revealed technology.

                  This applies directly to LENR. . The Patterson Cell was an implementation of the Pons and Fleischmann electrolysis approach, which he had developed, and which had been fully tested by reputable scientists and shown to work, producing excess heat. Patterson didn’t “trust” patents, and kept his details secret. He had problems reproducing his own pellet design, and unexpectedly died before overcoming the problems.

                  And most of your other comments demonstrate a similar degree of ignorance.

                • georgehants

                  US National Library of Medicine
                  National Institutes of Health
                  Patents restrict access to medicines, and poor patients die every day of
                  diseases against which effective treatments exist. Those prepared to
                  defend an unfettered pharmaceutical market must acknowledge that the only freedom it offers these people is the freedom to die without access to essential medicines.
                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118638/

                • Warthog

                  Uh, no. Patents accelerate the development and deployment of drugs. It costs a huge amount of money to develop a drug treatment.

                  The point about “taxpayers fund (some) drug research” is true…but the point missing is that any technology developed with US funds and patented has to be LICENSED to the company to produce…any such license always contains the clause that the US government retains the right to produce the medical technology (device or drug) or sublicense it for manufacture to a second without the agreement of the licensing company.

                  So the good old USA could, itself, license the drugs for manufacture offshore if they wish. Of course, if the drug or device was developed by the company itself (or licensed from an independent inventor by that company), then the company has the sole right to produce or sublicense the tech.

                  I specifically know about this, as the small company that I am part owner of was involved with the development of analytical instrumentation to detect biowarfare agents. Development funded under a government grant. Had precisely the same legal requirement(s) as above.

                  As is usually the case, your knowledge background is lacking.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Sorry to poke into discussion, but it seems to me that George Hants and Warthog are talking about different delays. George means the delay of getting to know Rossi’s secrets. Whereas Warthog probably means a delay that was possibly created in cold fusion research because of lack of public funding since 1989.
          George: A patent only denies commercial selling of the device. It does not deny anyone from replicating it and telling others how it was done. If something is patented, everyone knows how it is done because everyone can read the patent (after the patent text is public, which normally happens 18 months from the filing date although can be postponed by the inventor if he applies certain legal tricks). If something is a company secret instead of a patent, then… well, then replication is a “challenge”.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, am I correct in that if MFMP copied the patent and sold devices at cost to those in need they would be liable to legal action.
            Or if they copied it and donated the devices free to the needy they would still be liable.
            My point as above is, that a patent is a capitalistic device to amass profit and as with the drug industry lead to the poor being unable to benefit as they would if the discovery was open-source.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              If they sell, then yes, legal action. If they donate, then probably not, but I’m not a lawyer. If they just tell how to but do not give the device physically, then most likely not.

              • georgehants

                Thank you, so if a charity was set-up to copy IH Cats and then distribute them freely to the poor that would be legal.
                My opinion is that would not be correct, but I think we need somebody familiar with patent law to help us.
                Anybody there?

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  Yes, with my knowledge final conclusion cannot be made. Should also remember that Rossi has been planning donating units to poor.

                • georgehants

                  Pekka, Hopefully somebody knowledgeable will help us out soon.
                  Mr. Rossi’s stand will be interesting to watch as time goes by.
                  Best

                • malkom700

                  The problem of poor to implicate is ideological theme, not technical. Some people also believe that the only way to we can help the poor, we will be even richer.

                • Observer

                  The problem with giving assets to the poor is that they often can not afford to maintain the asset (not to mention the tax on the gift).

                  Also there is the problem of the poor needing immediate cash more than they need your gift, so they sell it, undermining the purpose of the gift.

                  Many assets are expensive to own. The cost of ownership keeps assets in the possession of those that can afford owning them. This is one reason why the rich own the majority of the assets.

      • Sean

        Hi George, look at this tweet by John Cleese. Right on in my book. Think beyond the barriers and open mind to possibilities. Interesting to say the least.

        • georgehants

          Ha, Sean you forgot the link, I think.

        • GreenWin

          Great tweet. THX Sean!

        • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

          Dear @JohnCleese Did not realise you are interested in Science. Could pass over a Cold Fusion Reactor if that would help?— DrBob (@DrBobCrew) January 5, 2016

          • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

            I got in contact today with the PA of John who has promised to forward my email to Jon. 🙂

      • giovanniontheweb

        historically, the speed of utilization is determined by the number of best-money able to work on the subject, then, when no more direct advantage is the deal, best minds will be reworded posthumous

  • GreenWin

    I find this news encouraging if only to confirm the following:

    1. Tom Darden is dedicated to limit air pollution which EVs and hybrids do
    2. Darden is a socially conscious investment manager
    3. Industrial Heat and E-Cat are well known to Silicon Valley entrepreneurs
    4. An E-CatX could use a Tesla battery/inverter to safely control SSM
    5. Darden is expanding his market for the 1MW/IH E-Cat

    The other signers to this initiative are all ‘greenish’ and should be VERY interested in applications of the 1MW heat unit. Musk could make a big splash using a 250kW-1MW unit and Stirling engines for a LENR Tesla supercharger. Or dry paint etc. at the Tesla car plant.

    Maybe the backwards old Sierra Club will become a conservationist organization again?

  • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

    Why have batteries ?
    Why not have steam.
    Do not need to make electricity just heat.
    All the tech’ for steam cars has mostly been done.
    May mean there may be a small waiting time before drive off.
    Maybe use a battery for initial motive power.
    Still need batteries for on board electronics.
    The existing alternator system should suffice.

    • builditnow

      Twobob, steam would work, however a Hot-Cat powered “jet” turbine could be a lot lighter more powerful and ultimately simpler. Rossi is now working on converting a turbine to LENR. Stage 1 could be micro turbines charging smaller batteries in existing electric drive vehicles.

      However, steam could be an excellent demonstration vehicle if our open experimenter can crack the secret sauce.

  • Agaricus

    I read this as further confirmation that whatever version of e-cat is eventually produced, the target market is industrial powergen, not domestic installations. Darden probably recognises that no private, unmetered usage of cold fusion devices will be permitted by TPTB, and the only route open to IH and associates is industrial CF, gradually substituting for coal, oil, gas, and in due course (meaning when all possible profit has been extracted from existing plants), nuclear fission.

    As far as vehicle propulsion goes, this means that we won’t see cars powered by e-cat x derivatives, but will be forced to accept the inefficient kludge of using CF to generate grid power, which is then used to charge batteries or capacitors in electric vehicles. The move in the US and many other countries towards metering mileage by means of a GPS transponder fitted in cars, rather than the currently obvious course of adding taxes to fuel prices, can be seen in this light.

    Although I doubt that many politicians are currently aware of the coming CF revolution, things may well come together quite nicely for them… and incidentally also for the spooks who will be able to track your every movement by car (the main political motivation for forcing this technology).

    • Omega Z

      “Darden probably recognises that no private usage of cold fusion devices will be permitted by TPTB for some considerable time.”

      It will be some time before it makes a dent in Industrial use.
      We tend to overlook the fact that it is still very much at the R&D stage. That it will be some time & still has bridges to cross before it becomes available shouldn’t be unexpected.

    • GreenWin

      Musk/Tesla has invested heavily in their ‘PowerWall’ solar/battery product. It is aimed at eliminating need for a grid. His battery/inverter combo might be a perfect fit for a E-CatX 10kW CHP. Most of these signers (except Sierra) are big utility opponents promoting off-grid living.

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

    This is all nonsense. The batteries we have now are way too expensive and inefficient. We should wait until battery and supercapacitor technology is good enough and cheap enough to do the job, and then we won’t need mandates or pressure from “greenies.” People will buy electric cars because they are cost effective. Until then, pollution from manufacturing dirty and inefficient battery technology is worse than using oil. At least oil works and is efficient. Can you imagine ships and long haul trucks running on batteries? Globally, ships pollute as much as cars and trucks. We need LENR powered cars and better battery technology, not pressure to make even more mistakes that drive up the cost of living at a time of economic collapse and large homeless populations. The decadent green gurus don’t care about poor people. They are too busing flying off to important meetings on their private jets.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed, and yes, better batteries are being developed. Here is one: http://www.broadbit.com/

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

        There are half a dozen companies racing to the market with much improved battery and supercapacitor technology. If Volkswagon starting building large numbers of electric cars now with current technology, they would have no one to sell them to except people who are bad at math. Current Tesla electric cars are not “green”; they are just very expensive toys for the rich and considered too unreliable to buy according to Consumer Reports.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Agreed. Half of Tesla’s mass is batteries, which is just crazy. Then in order to limit the total mass to something reasonable, the frame of the car is heavily optimised using composites, which makes it expensive.

  • Alain Samoun

    If I can see and agree with the objectives of a cleaner and more productive California. On a short term (1-5 years).I can’t see what will be the interest of VW cars owners: Changing their auto to an electric car with a limited range – Right now to a maximum of 110 miles per charges – With no network of recharging stations and long charging time. For VW either a huge cost of conversion or giving away a new car to their customers. On another end,on long term (5-10 years), this can lead to a new type of car. I wonder what is the real intention(s) of Darden and Musk who actually could compete: Batteries against LENR?

    • US_Citizen71

      Synergy. E-Cats take a bit to start making it inconvenient and a 70kW+ one will not be cheap for awhile. Batteries to go long distance are heavy and expensive. Combining the two likely has power to weight ratio and a distance that makes a perfect electric car. The E-Cats could charge the batteries when parked and help extend range and provide the power at low speeds, while the batteries provide the extra horsepower when needed and give range at high speed.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Cost shouldn’t be a big issue, if Rossi’s estimate of $50/kW is correct. 70*$50=$3500. Maybe one has to multiply it by two if electric power is only half of total power output of the E-cat. On the other hand, 70kW is probably an overestimate of the average (not peak) power consumption of a car. Especially because the car is relatively lightweight because it needs no heavy battery pack.

        • US_Citizen71

          The $50 per kW price will take production on a large scale to achieve. Without a battery the E-cat will need to be able to provide peak power even if it is only 5% of the time. This is why I say they’re synergistic.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed completely: it does need a battery back, but not a heavy one. By “heavy” I mean something which is half the mass of the vehicle or such. By non-heavy I mean something akin to present-day hybrid cars.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              “Battery pack”, not “battery back”, sorry.

  • Carl Wilson

    “The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries.”
    I’ve commented repeatedly on this bottleneck and that the E-Cat’s effect on the oil and car industries would be delayed thereby. However, there is the prospect of E-Cat-X and direct production of electricity could alter the picture.
    Just where the stranded assets are going to turn up is pretty uncertain. And those holding them will have a great interest in getting out from under the losses.