Market Analyst: Saudi Arabia may Invest in LENR

Stephen Pope is the founder and managing partner at Spotlight Ideas, a market analysis company that provides private market analysis service and also publishes analyses on its spotlightideas.net site.

Stephen Pope has published an article which appears on the Trading Floor website titled “Saudi Arabia prepares to break oil-wealth dependency” in which he looks at the recent move of Saudi Arabia to set up a new sovereign wealth fund to diversify its investments and get away from dependency upon its oil wealth alone.

One of the areas of energy diversification that Mr. Pope speculates could be attractive for the Saudis to invest in is LENR. He writes:

A potential avenue that could be explored is that of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or Lattice Enabled Nanoscale Reactions (LENR). This is a chemical/physical event where anomalous amounts of heat are generated when certain metals absorb hydrogen or deuterium and an external stimulus such as an electric current is directly applied.

A potential partner for KSA to partner with is Industrial Heat LLC that was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. This firm has already been granted the license to sell and manufacture energy catalysers “E-Cats” in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable to envisage the Saudis looking for partners to help start laying the groundwork for commercialisation of LENR within the Kingdom and for export overseas.

So we see that the LENR is now getting some more notice by those who are paying attention to current geopolitics and the financial markets. Neil Woodford, manager of Woodford Capital Management in the UK is another, and he has already invested around $50 million into Industrial Heat.

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

    All that’s needed is some kind of cheap, efficient electricity storage system – then fossil/nuclear centralised power generation will be toast with or without LENR. When this finally becomes available it will be almost as disruptive as a new power source.

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

    I have believed since 2012 that this is inevitable. At risk of sounding like a broken record:-

    Established corporate interests would use media, political and financial corruption underwritten from their infinitely deep pockets to prevent LENR from emerging, if they perceived that ‘uncontrolled’ introduction of CF would damage their overall profits (it would obliterate them).

    From their POV, CF can only be ‘permitted’ to emerge is if they directly control the technology, and hence the introduction process, and in any case it will take corporate-scale money to effect the changeover from fossil/nuclear centralised power generation to centralised CF power generation. They will be completely supported in this by politicians fearful of losing revenues from energy production and use.

    The only way that the technology could be introduced outside of corporate control would be widespread dissemination of the information needed to build a viable cold fusion reactor, and a consequent ‘gold rush’ that would overwhelm the process under way of absorbing cold fusion into the energy cartels.

  • Zephir

    Cold fusion discussions are still banned on every mainstream science thread including PhysForum and /r/Science /r/Physics reddits, which are moderated young postdocs. Which provides the ignorance of cold fusion by mainstream science for many years in advance.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, the analyst says LENR is an area that Saudi Arabia should consider.

    So they “should” consider LENR!

    SHOULD!!!

    There NOTHING here that suggests, hints or even implies that Saudi Arabia is thinking about, or considering LENR.

    So an analyst suggesting that Saudis should invest in LENR is a HUGE difference then the Saudis are considering such investments.

    I mean I can stand here and suggest that the Automakers should invest and consider LENR – but how that “morphs” into a headline that Automakers are considering LENR does not make sense.

    However, what is GREAT is that business analysts are making mention of LENR – so in this light, I like the article, but the headline should be changed.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • sam

    SAD

  • MasterBlaster7

    This is the correct way to be excited; haha.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Curb your enthusiasm. This is more of a sensational write-up. The real players haven’t been kicked in the nards yet. And when they do, it will take them 6 months to figure out what happened and another 6 months to figure out how to respond to it.

    It will kinda unfold like the ought 7/8 financial collapse. It will not be more interesting by the hour.

  • nietsnie

    Very well put. And I agree – it’s as if we have spectator seats with a good view of the invention of the wheel, or fire, or the internet. Decades from now we’ll be able to say, ‘I was there when there was some question as to whether it was even real.

    If the invention of fire-starting with flint had been covered by the stone age press, a few years later a commemoration article would have been written with a quote something like: “A few were saying, ‘I see sparks’, but well respected experts were saying, ‘You couldn’t possibly have seen sparks – it’s long been well established that sparks only come from the sky.'”

  • bfast

    The discussion of Rydberg hydrogen causes me to wonder about brilliant light power (formerly blacklight power). Are these two paths going to unify? It would be very surprising to me if brilliant light was also for real, and a truly different technology to LENR.

  • Zephir

    But it’s also another evidence, that the dismissal of cold fusion isn’t matter of fossil fuel lobby, but the physicists itself, as sifferkoll already correctly recognized and noted

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/something-really-bothers-me-about-the-apcoworldwide-lenr-connection/

  • PW

    Last year in october there was the tipping-point. Solar energy is now cheaper in producing electricity than oil, gass or coal. There was a documentary in the Netherlands, maybe this link is still active but unfortunately mostly in Dutch: http://www.npo.nl/vpro-tegenlicht/17-03-2016/VPWON_1259486
    It shows that there is a lot of movement in the energy sector and that investors are now willing to invest in new sorts of energy!

    • Zephir

      Solar energy is now cheaper in producing electricity than oil, gas or coal – maybe in Arizona, but definitely not in my country.

  • Carl Wilson

    For those who imagine a connection between E-Cat progress and the oil market, here’s some ideas to chew on.

    There’s been speculation that part of Saudi strategy has been to close down high cost oil producers such as fracking in the US and tar sands in Canada.
    If that’s true and the E-Cat appears as a medium to long term threat to oil, then the Saudis could cut way back on oil production. The price would rise a
    lot. Ordinarily this would get others to (somewhat warily) invest in
    expanded production. With E-Cat on the horizon such investment would
    look especially risky. This could leave the Saudis in a very strong
    position during the phase out of oil.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It’s possible.
      The E-cat either comes or does not come, and there is no consensus about the probability. In such situation it makes sense to sidestep the probability question and just try and find a business strategy that yields a satisfactory outcome in both of the alternative futures. What the Saudis are doing seems consistent with such approach. Does it then mean that the Saudis are doing what they are doing because of LENR? Yes and no. The question is not quite well posed.

      • pg

        Well put

      • Carl Wilson

        Yes, much of the point I was making is independent of developments in LENR specifically – but some sort of energy transition sure seems to be in the making. However the underlying factors of high ongoing demand for oil and the need for long term high capital investment for supply of oil apply to a broad range of possibilities. So much depends on timing and standard economic theory is so deficient in addressing timing questions.

        In previous remarks on this forum I’ve speculated that LENR impact on the major use of oil – transportation – was somewhat down the road being dependent on battery intermediation, with direct production of electricity by LENR awaiting further developments. But now, I don’t know. Our favorite mad genius, AR, claims to have made the leap. Along with others, I have my doubts. But if AR’s past failures in delivery claims are repeated in this case, may not the underlying validity of the (First) Rossi Effect foreshadow the validation of a Second Rossi Effect?

  • Gerard McEk

    And when the Saudies invest another two trillion in IH, I withdraw out of this poker game. I just buy an E-cat …. in Sweden. 🙂

    • Zephir

      I’d just wait with extrapolations – until now the IH is not even able to publish his report in time. My feeling is, many people tend to overestimate the short-term impact of cold fusion at the market heavily.

      • Brent Buckner

        IH slideshow ( http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/06/industrial-heat-slideshow-cobraf-com/ ) suggests a conservative estimate of the levelized cost of electricity of 3.0 cents/kWh (possibly as low as 1.5 cents) from a reactor that is ready for commercialization (I suppose a hot Cat).

        • Zephir

          The general effectiveness of heat to electricity conversion in fossil fuel plants is ~ 33%, so that the (electrically heated) cold fusion device must have COP > 3 minimally for to pay itself. And with COP ~ 6 the cost of energy produced can be only twice-times as lower as the average retail cost of heat from electricity (10.44 USD/kWh in USA) – not including the raw sources, maintenance and distribution costs. This is easy and simple math:

          http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state

          • Brent Buckner

            Yes. Which is why I knew to suppose that the reactor to which IH referred was a hot cat, not the LT cat that has just had the 1MW 1 year test completed.

            • Zephir

              It may took another ten – fifteen years before this technology will emerge at the market. What actually changed during five years after first Rossi demonstration in Bologna? The five years apparently means nothing in development of this technology. Our world could get very different after then: http://yournewswire.com/china-orders-attack-subs-to-us-west-coast/

              • Brent Buckner

                As IH wrote that the reactor “may be ready for commercialization” I will take the under on ten years. I’ll even take the under on five years.

              • MasterBlaster7

                Nah. There will be the initial shock and turmoil once MSS and MSM wrap their heads around what is happening once product starts to roll out. 1-2 years. Then, maybe 5 years to start putting a small dent into the energy sector. 20 years for full roll out. 30 years for interesting offshoots to the tech. Maturity in 40 years? Something like that. But, 15 years to market emergence, nah.

          • Carl Wilson

            Your math is deceptive in this case.
            Consider two processes:
            (1) Coal => Heat => Electricity
            vs.
            (2) Coal + Secret Sauce => Heat => Electricity

            Now iterate them.
            In case 1, to get more you need more coal, just as much as in first iteration.
            In case 2, to get more you can use some of the electricity and left over heat from first iteration and left over Secret Sauce from first iteration.
            As I understand it, a little Secret Sauce goes a long way.