Decentralization and LENR (Michel Vandenberghe)

The following post has been submitted by Michel Vandenberghe, CEO of LENR Cities (a few minor grammatical changes have been made)

One thinks about LENR and energy but forgets, or underestimates the most important with LENR: Decentralization.

Back to the basics: Innovation is a social process which means actors in a position to reshape the economy/society must find mutual self-interest to change their own positions; that is to say each of them getting more value at the end, and each of them with compelling reasons to act. Invention is the catalyst or materialization of the corresponding forces.

A zero sum game works when losers can find an alternative. When an invention has a pervasive impact, any non-global approach, not aligned with this process generates forces to inhibit unbalanced self-interests and wev need more time to find some equilibrium. There’s no alternative for the losers and anything can happen.

So it might be 10 years or quicker with a huge destruction of value where results are as unpredictable as the process of Innovation is itself dynamic (like LENR).

There are one million of details but basically this is how it works…

Then, no way? One knows at least one solution. Implementing a global approach which looks like a domain of coherency in physics.
Let’s first consider what we know with the World Wide Web. How to use the core technology is simple and its intrinsic value is low, the technology is open but what makes the difference is its inherent attributes of adoption which create mutual self-interests (the network), compelling reason to act (the user) and easier integration. The value anyone can get by joining is higher than with any competitive strategy for all actors including leading corporations in Information technologies.

LENR technology has no such attributes: Just some: Compelling reason to act, decentralized. Simple, it should be and Intrinsic value is low, what has value is applications and it must be a commodity, a good candidate to be open.

How to add missing attributes and why? The reason is obvious. Implementing a global and fully shared adoption process means less risks, more “value density’, more investments so, less time to be mature and so on. If everything changes at the same time with dependent variables at each level, there are less changes but everything is different.

Then, How to add the missing attributes? The answer is well known. Finding the right business model and the generic pattern of this model is known: The platform model. The paradox is the following: One needs to develop the technology but not to sell the technology itself. The value proposal is to enable adopters to get value with it.

A simple example. Google has developed an impressive search engine technology and to find your prospective customers has a value.
LENR must not be considered as a standalone topic. There are obvious interdependencies with many ongoing innovation processes such as the electric car, green economy, nanoscience revolution and so on.

Another essential innovation is about decentralized autonomous/cooperative organizations. A new revolution is coming fast and financial actors are stakeholders of this innovation. It is just obvious that a decentralized source of energy will foster the development of a decentralized economy but also that a decentralized economy will foster the emergence of a decentralized source of energy…

A lot of players are moving is the right direction to address our global challenges but our chance to succeed globally are low without a catalyst.

To summarize: If adoption is feasible, all required resources will be available and yes, there are a million of details

Obviously, there’s the scientific challenge. LENR is transdisciplinary which means the innovation process also applies to the scientific challenge. I think you can guess what the LENRG team has been working on since 3 years in order to contribute to the global effort.

Michel Vandenberghe

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This was a scary movie about civilization collapsing after the grid goes down (starvation, cannibalism etc.). Decentralization is the way
    to go.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KcI0gLq1A

  • Jarea

    God Christina, capitalist also have a dark face on the people. This happens when it gets corrupted as other systems. US, for example, has one of the biggest difference between rich and poor. Rich people don´t want to share and the become in kings of a new feudal kingdom. Now the faces are differences but the behaviors are the same. Not everybody has the same opportunities now in the US. It could have been before but the capitalism has been corrupted from the top. The free competition has been replaced by secrecy treats, protectionist and friendship. Now you have to replace land by robots and knowledge to see the same unfair behavior of the lords. The top would like to control the robots, production and knowledge so that there is no competency from the bottom.
    On the other hand, the ideas are only free if they are not patented. There are so many troll patents there. So your way to the american dream has been cut either in the virtual world of ideas and in the real world of production by robots.

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

      This is the wrong accusation for some thinkers lik hernando De Soto.
      for him, a man of the thrid/emerging world, expert in the behaviors of poors, the problem is not tha the rich keep their money, it is that the poors cannot use their own capital to be capitalist at their local scale.
      Crony capitalism, british system in Ireland, feudal system, colonialism, indian caste system, all those system were preventing some people to have capital and exploit it.

      http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/capitalisms-assault-on-the-indian-caste-system

      The future is like in my family Kampung in indonesia, when people rent their car to someone who can find a driver, to transport the neighbours…
      This is sharing economy, the purest capitalism.

      when you value your car you moped, your room, your garden, your education, your network, your knowledge, your place, to help your neighbors, and be paid for what you make them save.

      De Soto found that the poorest in Cairo city were 50% capitalist in their income…

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hernando-de-soto/piketty-wrong-third-world_b_6751634.html

      Only on our western society is there such a caste divide between capitalist and employees…

      Of course Uber is not the final stage.
      The final stage is when everybody could be Uber platform, or that Uber will be the drivers, the clients, and nobody else to decide.

      the reason people die of hunger is not they have no fish… they can fish.
      not they have no fish cane, they can build a fish cane.
      it is that some people forbid them to build a fish cane without industrial standards and fish without license, and that even if they obtain the needed license, someone will steal them the fishcane or the license.

      Give LENR to people, they will all be capitalist, like a cairo kid, like the fruit seller who burned himself in corrupted Tunisia, they will sell and buy, and nobody will be able to block them for long…

      and yes, USA is not a free market, but a very protectionist and crony system, like many Western system are, like France. It is liberal at some scale, but just talking of health, the market is terribly managed, crony beyond repair.

  • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

    Michel – there are four main points, which makes LC’s ideas highly fit to the ongoing world change (driven by digitalisation):

    1. decentralised/distributed technology
    2. decentralised/distributed networked organisation/business
    3. sharing economy
    4. business built on the value LENR can bring, not on IP

    It’s all there. However, I still think that the vision needs to be explained in a more clear way.
    You need to work on this (and I’d be glad to help you).

    • Michel Vandenberghe

      Hi Mats,

      Yes, you are right. Thank you. Our problem is, as you know well, the way to explain depends on the person to whom the messaget is intended…

      Another important point is his background : For instance, let’s do a search to know what people think about the busienss model of Google. Many people, many anwsers….

      Let’s talk about Google. Google has designed an innovative search engine. Do you pay to do searches on Google? No. Why? Because Google knows what you search. So, Google offers intermediation to companies willing to push ads to people who are searching produucts or services these companies have to sell or promote. They move the ads from the provider,to you.

      Google does not own the product or service, ads, customer, Google is a platform and the business of a platform is based on intermediation.

      What is the intermediation. An offer to develop your own business. Moreover, Google creates the market. This market exists because the search engine exists and enables to apply the model at very large scale. Any company can get access to the best of breed technology, with Ads at low cost.

      Try to guess for Amazon. Intermediation with shipping and Cloud, or Ebay, where is the buyer and so on.

      Let’s consider actors with an asset and expertise with some value but no way to monetize this asset (tough to be funded , tough to sell this asset).

      LENR-Cities is a platform, Our offer is to develop your own business (a pure player).
      Our offer is to provide intermediation in business development (Not business development)
      At large scale, LENR-Cities is a Market Development Platform,
      Our target is LENR.

      Like Google, we need to develop some LENR technology, but we do not sell technologies but the value which can be created with LENR. Our partners sell technologies. We can work with people developing technologies, with IP licensing or Open technology, in a cooperative way.

      But you wonder, how it works !!!!! (this is a complex stuff, with many details, Like LENR, it is systemic..)

      Let’s say you have some assets and expertise.

      – Any stakeholder needs to develop its own ecosystem where his asset has an added value?
      – Apply this at a large scale,
      – Any stakeholder is part of the ecosystem of another stakeholder… Right?
      – Now, Let’s optimize this process based on the complementary of their self-interests to select a subset of all stakeholders (That implies an end to end value chain s defined)
      – At the end, a set of stakeholders with mutual self-interests,
      – We say, a cooperative Ecosystem (Business is based on partnership only)
      – and ………………….
      – …………………………
      The whole process is based on sharing economy model. What is sharing economy? The value comes from the increasing use of resource (resources to implement the process), More value, less risk, less cost……..
      – …………………………..
      – ………………………….
      You are a final customer. (an industrial) Let get access to the best of breed technology in order to ……….. Develop your own business !

      Today, most our processes are craft. The objective is obviously to implement a digital platform…. If you know well the digital economy, you know it can be done…
      Our vision: The societal aspect of the project : to create business, jobs, massive innovation…

      Open Business for LENR…….. and more……

      Michel.

      • Frank Acland

        Hi Michel, Can you help make things clearer by providing a concrete example?
        Let’s say I operate a paper mill, and I have heard that LENR heat could help make my paper manufacturing process cheaper. How can LENR Cities help me?

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          Hi Frank, you will pay a fix fee to LENRG (LC is just one company of the LENRG Ecosystem) in order to get a sustainable technology to be able to transform you infrastructure. LENRG global offering is not to provide Reactors (does not make sense with LENR) or energy. THis is not our business.

      • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

        Better Michel.

        What comes to my mind though, is one of the risks that is often highlighted when discussing digitalisation of businesses – that early platforms become dominating and very powerful, that they capture huge market shares and contribute to merciless competition among users.

        Examples are e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, freelance platforms such as Upwork (former Elance-Odesk), transportation platforms such as Uber (and social platforms such as Facebook, although a bit different).

        The squeezing competition is apparent at Amazon, Upwork and Uber, and it has been discussed how it would be possible to strengthen the negotiation power for individual users offering their services on such platforms.

        One suggestion has been that an Unconditional Basic Income, which is discussed for other reasons (machines eliminating jobs), could also help in this case, since it would make people less dependent on taking every commissioned work at the lowest market price.

        In any case – this might be a minor issue regarding LENR. Clearly such platforms create business opportunities. But the questions is how much power the platform gets, and how much value it will retain if it conquers some sort of monopoly position.

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          Issue about the power of the platform has been taken in account and fixed. It is a requirement by design of this business. Objective is to enable a smooth transition with LENR…

    • Charles Twain

      Are you trying to steer clear of LENR now?

      • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

        Why? LENR is as important as ever for our planet, as a potential solution to fundamental global problems.

      • Roland

        No; Mats is just hoping for literate lucidity, as little is apparent in the post, as a much higher standard of communication skills will be needed, going forward, if LENR Cities is to have any actual impact on events.

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          No, Mats is proposing his communications skills to help to present the vision. May be you think he is just polite? . I think this is important even with high communications skills; In any case, Mats’s message has some positive impact..

  • Charles

    Knowing tomorrow would bring an EMP blast would wonderfully concentrate the mind.

  • Chet Hunterley

    Michel – I’ve been trying to understand the LENR-Cities business model since studying some of your postings from last year. I am still not able to grasp what you’re attempting to accomplish. Have you been able to refine the LC model to a point where it can be more easily explained?

    • Michel Vandenberghe

      Let’s assume we have defined a flexible process to build and run a decentralized cooperative organization, a set of autonomous projects but complementary, to develop LENR technology and business (complex)..

      Each Team participating in this process has some required assets only. None of them can be funded alone, with some exceptions trying to acquire some basic control points. It is also not easy to monetize any part if there is no end to end established business.

      Early a team is involved in process higher is its risk and consequently its expected ( and effective is the objective) payback if it works. It is a sharing economy model applied to the developement of LENR.

      Our business model is simple. The whole process is monetized in different ways with an intermediation platform. You want to be part of LENR business and benefits from the existing and evolving ecosystem i.e. i.e. connect with actors required to run your own business. Whoever is the actor from a scientist, investor, to an industrial customer, each actor brings some assets and get a value back depending on its own business. It includes developing its own business.

      Sharing economy (higher utilization of any resource) create additional value including for funding. Note that many innovative digital technologies regarding decentralized organizations will fully be suited for such a global business in the 2/3 coming years..

      This is Open Business. This business is self regulated and each actor gets a share of the value.

      Involved actors can rely on IP licensing or open Source. Our business model is neutral. Remind that with the sharing economy investments (including reusing of existing assets) are shared by all the actors. I.e. Think about sharing seats in cars, cars, tools and so on…

      For now we are looking for partners able to bring funding for the whole project. The process is designed to minimize all risks including systemic risks. For a smooth transition to LENR. This is the vision.

      Day to day, each participating actor in the project has a payback, including in early stage for each single actor. This value increases with the development of the ecosystem.

      We are learning. What the project/process is depends on involved actors. We have business as usual activities but with interdependencies to cross leveraging them. We ae developing each block step by step.

      Objective is to produce LENR technologies with a well organizaed ecosystel to deploy them at global scale, all done in a cooperative way.

      Hope this help.
      Michel.

      • cashmemorz

        SO is this overall a non or anti monopolistic or a cummunistic goal?

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          Open Business.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            Open Source Business?

            • Michel Vandenberghe

              No, Open Business is to be more competitive if you cooperate. A rational choice to make companies to prefer to cooperate.
              Open Source is not enough, Ay business can use Open Source….
              THere’s a strong complementary. between Open Business and Open Technology.

              • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

                …”make” companies cooperate freely.
                But what interest would push companies to cooperate, if they compete?

                • Michel Vandenberghe

                  To be more competitive.

                  You consider the following: Why you would cooperate with a company you are in competition with. The paradox is only apparent. You are in competition if being in competition enables you to be more competitive. If you are less competitive as a result….what is your interest ?

                  Search “Open innovation”. for instance.

  • Mike Henderson

    Political types are compelled to cast every issue as black and white polar opposites.

    Abortion, for example, is cast as Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice battle with no ground between. And yet the vast majority know better.

    And you must be either socialist or capitalist, right? Bullshit. We need both an incentive for progress and a means for delivering social stability. Let them eat cake and they’ll spare the royalty from the guillotine. Noblesse oblige.

    Polarization is the problem.

    • Ted-Z

      All discussions about reforming the capitalist system to provide it with a “human face” are choked very quickly. This is not good, as it leads to the less controlled changes and suffering of many people. This bring a question: is it still possible to reform the system?
      —————————————————————–
      A reformed capitalism: Sweden and (partly) Switzerland.
      In addition, before the 2nd World War, the German system of 6% profit, worked better in the ECONOMIC DOMAIN than other capitalistic economies. This is well known. Nobody wants to even discuss the principle of limiting the profits to 6%.
      THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES, THE USA IS NOT THE ONLY CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
      The discussion here takes a NARROW VIEW that the USA-model is the only possible capitalistic system.

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    Andy, Thank you for your comment. You are right. I did not write explicitely what is essential. I mean that if we were able to develop a business not based on licensing (IP), but based on the value LENR can bring to each of us in a direct or indirect way, we would have a way for a win-win smooth transition to LENR. No need to show what the problem is…
    BTW. What is the cost of 1 year delay if that it works?

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    The topic: Players must adopt new rules with a game changer. In order to avoid any interruption during the game, all of them must adopt the new rules at the same time and obviously each player must expect more benefits with the new game.

    • Alan Smith

      Nice article Michel. Many years ago I was required to write a dissertation on ‘Game Theory’ as it is applied in negotiating compromises between opposing sides. In my case it was the coal-miners and the UK governerment who were at odds. I can see similar problems ahead between the pro and anti LENR groups in both business and politics. Take a nose around ‘game theory’ if you need to know more.

      I am pondering what I call a ‘Sunday Idea’. While AR was building relatively large-scale plants that fit into the centralised genration / grid distribution model we have now, IH were happy bunnies. As soon as he started to talk about a small system that produced heat or electricity for local needs – that would not fit the status quo – everything went wrong. Just a crazy idea..

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        …autarchies… scary to centralized organizations.

      • Carl Wilson

        AR has long talked about small systems, no change there. But the prospect of direct production of electricity is a real game changer. I’m not at all convinced that AR is for real but am willing to entertain what I call the Incomplete E-Cat hypothesis which posits there is a core validity to the heat-producing E-Cat. If direct production of electricity also had a core of validity, that would really impact the “centralized generation/grid distribution model”.

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    Being energetically autonomous is essential. The TV helps to reduce population growth. It depends 🙂

  • SG

    With COP of 50, you could build cities on the ocean, in the desert, or even in the sky. It might actually turn out to be less impact on other creatures and more preservation of their habitats.

  • Mike Rion

    Very well said Christina. I think OR must be a socialist and as such the true enemy of Capitalism. And no, I’m not independently wealthy. I just love freedom and liberty.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Freedom through servitude. How do your billionaire masters give you freedom and liberty?

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        It’s in the human behaviour. Those who stop striving to survive begin to have enough time and energy to feel they are worth more than their fellow people. This is where a lack of culture, not information, is a destructive force.

      • Mike Rion

        Powerful billionaire masters exist in virtually every facet of governance, but most of all in socialism. However capitalism and the inherent freedom and liberty of a democratic republic is the only system, which provides opportunity for even the lowest achievers to rise to the top with hard work and ambition, while those in a socialist setting are lulled into complacence by a false sense of security. I don’t need to be taken care of, I can take care of myself and always have.

        • psi2u2

          When factories are robotized, and much of education and other infrastructure delivered via computers, how will private industry keep jobless workers from starving and revolting? At the very least, if you want to preserve capitalism, it will have to take another form.

          • Mike Rion

            An interesting query, which deserves much thought. Both capitalism and Democracy, at least in the US have been constantly evolving since the very beginning (1776). It is one of our primary strengths that our constitution was written in anticipation of this need for constant change. And yes, it will need to change even further to incorporate the changes you project. We can only trust, and hope, that it will do so while preserving the essence of freedom of expression, liberty and achievement, which has so defined its existence so far.

            • psi2u2

              I agree. We do not want to imitate the failures of some of the past models, but we will need to adapt our idea of the role of capitalism and markets. I’m glad that you recognize the importance of the query. We may have an opportunity to end or at least greatly reduce poverty and inequality, and free many citizens for productive pursuits not driven by the need to earn a basic income, without — one hopes — sacrificing the values you rightly insist are worth preserving (freedom of expression etc.).

              • Mike Rion

                A reasonable premise, but it fails to acknowledge that the system has been constantly modified over the past 200+ years with that exact end in mind. Certainly, similar to Rossi’s Ecat, no system of economics and governance can be expected to proceed efficiently without at least some outside control. But like the proverbial screw, which should be tightened within 1/2 turn of stripping it’s threads, it is difficult to know exactly when the point of over control is reached, especially when elements of socialism are added along with their related financial strain. Throw in fiscal mismanagement and the inefficiency of added government oversight and reaching the point of over control becomes even more a risk. It’s true that greed is an important factor in the tendency to stockpile power and wealth by the the upper echelon of fiscal society, but much more of a risk is the addictive nature of “free stuff”, which seems to be a major factor in a recent push for burgeoning, far reaching social programs. I personally feel that it is a false premise that the wealth held by the elite is being purposely withheld from the more needy factions. Indeed that wealth represents capital, which in a healthy capitalist system want’s, even need’s, to be invested, which nearly always benefits the working class. The trouble is our current system is being compromised by government over reach, ill advised methods of fiscal control and taxing policies that have constipated the healthy flow of this capital.

                • psi2u2

                  The internet has completely smashed the classical economic theory that people will only work for money.

                  http://www.amazon.com/Here-Comes-Everybody-Organizing-Organizations/dp/0143114948

                  This has to be taken into consideration in assessing the possible impact of a national wage, which seems to me the only way to cope with a future in which most jobs have been replaced by robotization or computerization. While I appreciate your emphasis on the values of an open society, you can’t have an open society if a few persons own the means of production and everyone else is just “out of work” or put on “unemployment” benefits.

                  Thus, I submit, ideas like “democratic socialism” a la the Scandinavian countries remain relevant and will become more so in the future.

        • Jarea

          Nobody says, that socialism is perfect and that the system should be that one. But it is a fact that the current capitalist is also not perfect. The capitalism system of debt, the corruption and the destruction of free competency must be corrected. This has been done in front of our eyes and it seems that we say to them yes please give me more.
          We have to tune the capitalism so that it become harder to corrupt by the people on the top, that they want to keep his version of capitalism, the version where they are the only one that can be rich with hard work.

          • Mike Rion

            Jarea, please see my reply to psi2u2 below.

  • Jas

    I thought drinking heavily might help me to decipher what the poster is expressing but its made it worse.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Get real. The mega rich are not going to take you with them to the paradise planet when they finish killing this one.

    • Mike Rion

      I’m not waiting for anyone to take me anywhere. I’ll make my own way thank you.

  • LilyLover

    Illusion of freedom is not freedom.
    Capitalism will not die because the masters need illusioned slaves.
    Capitalism enslaves. Welfare states could evolve.
    In US – 60% Govt. spending => socialism.
    Quality-less work -> get paid to show up -> socialism.
    Import everything -> at the military threat of financial hegemony -> socialism.
    5-%10% “illegals” + poor + “stupid-people” who did not realize that they can get away without working + a few percent good work-ethics people … perform the real work, for all other areas of US economy – it is a socialism with gunpoint with benefits siphoned upwards.

    To think that upper class is not more free merely because of immoral financial structures is pure naivete and reprehensibly immoral.

    Truth, however unpleasant, is still the truth. Cruelty, however decorated, is still immoral.

    Always remember: a welfare bimbo is more respectable than a “soldjerk”.

    • Mike Rion

      Another socialist, ugh.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Another self righteous drone sorting through your favorite despicable labels for people you disagree with, because you don’t have the freedom of mind to hold an honest discussion.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Labelling. Another way in which we humans feel comfortable treating what we perceive to be different, or ‘not normal’. Another way of trying to feel superior.

          • Mike Rion

            The basics of human nature never change, they are just called by different names.

        • Mike Rion

          Then you agree that Socialism is despicable. There may be hope for you yet. And why is it that someone like you always has to descend, from legitimate debate about the principles of something, into personal aspersions with no basis in fact? By my definition that’s the very opposite of honest discussion. And what makes you think I’m married at all?

          • Jarea

            You must recognize that your comment was not appropriated (condescending).
            If you want to argument then do it but spare you those comments.

    • Mike Rion

      Most of the problems being experienced in the US these days are attributable to encroaching socialism. Less governance, less free stuff, is what promotes ambition and hard work, which is the engine of innovation. Look to Andrea Rossi for an excellent example.

      • Alan Smith

        I would point out that Andrea Rossi is a product of what by American standards is a socialist state- free healthcare, free education and generous welfare provision.

        • Mike Rion

          Yes. In fact many of our most accomplished inventors and achievers have come to us from innovation stifling socialistic or totalitarian environments. Tesla, Einstein, Bell, Baer, Audubon, Stern, Sikorski, Carnegie, Yang, Szilard, Shockley, Pickering, Pauli, Currie and now Rossi just to name a few of the thousands and thousands who have immigrated to our shores to enjoy our superior system and freedom of expression and opportunity that our system provides. Sure, many other countries have accomplished scientists and inventors, but only rarely do you see the flow of such intellect into those places like into the US. And yes, if Rossi delivers, as it appears now that he will, he will join the ranks of the most lauded of those great personalities.

      • Jarea

        WTF, really? the problems are all attributable to socialism in the US?. I don’t see socialism in the US. Besides, with your logic then Germany should be the poorest country of the world. They have free healthcare. There, there are also rich and poor people, of course, but the socialism you talk has been there in Germany since WW2. You must see that some socialism “waste” is not what makes a country poor, but the corruption of the planned system. A centralized system will be easy to corrupt, and a system that requires centralized control is more weak than other that is distributed. In this case, capitalism is better than socialism because socialism requires some central control to share wealthy but capitalism is about individualism. However, capitalism has also centralized powers and those can also be corrupted. Law, media, rights, powers, violent force, and ultimately the money value are tools that are centralized somewhere and that can be bought.
        The problems in the US is the corruption and greediness of the rich. They are not forced to invest in US but they do invest in other countries to pay less taxes. They have taken advantage of the ideas and investments of the US but then taken the money and run to other free tax countries.
        If they invest and not accumulate their money, if they don’t speculate with debt, if they don’t kill new important advancements to protect they selves. If they don’t control politic and media, then i would say that “maybe” the little version of socialism in the US could be blamed for some “money wasting” on the US (i don’t think so).
        Rich people need to be enforced to do some risk investments (moonshots) and generate more activities and not just sit down and relax from what they have achieved. We all have to work hard and most of us until we are very old.
        Socialism on poor people is a small side waste to not break in civil disorder when they realize that they work for nothing.

        • Mike Rion

          Jarea, It is not my intent to be condescending and much of what you say is relevant, but I must take exception to a few of the things you said. First, I did not state that socialism was .responsible for all that is wrong in the US, only much of it. Certainly you must realize that I am American, but I do not know where you are from, Perhaps Germany. I have a lot of respect for Germany. Many of my Ancestors were from there and my Grandfather died there during WWII liberating the German people from Hitler’s degradations. They are indeed socialized as well as fiscally sound, but I wonder how they would fair if they had to support a military as large as the US. In addition not only does the US subsidize them with millions of dollars in aid, but there are many here who propose to
          charge them and other members of NATO for the protection our military affords them.
          In a capitalist system the rich do not horde and stockpile their riches. They invest them and they do that where it is most profitable. Regrettably our tax laws are pushing those investments off-shore currently. The laws need to be changed and that is one of the biggest problems now. If Trump is elected there is hope that will happen.

          Contrary to what you say capital is rarely withheld because the same greed that brought it about demands that it be invested to produce even more and in a perfect system that would benefit the workers by providing jobs. All types of government need regulation and control, even democratic capitalism. I’m not concerned that our capitalists will not invest, only that they will invest outside the country as you point out, or that they will manipulate our system by suppressing innovation in order to protect there current investments. I think with LENR there is a real danger of this. Just as the big banks were declared too big to fail, I’m afraid our current government will decide that big energy is also too big to fail and indirectly assist them in doing it. That is partly why Donald Trump is doing so well in our Primaries. I think many believe he will use his business acumen to put us on better fiscal footing. Just to be clear, we have always taken care of our poor and as long as I have been alive (I’m 70) even the poorest received basic medical care. But when millions of people choose to go on welfare because it is more lucrative than getting a job something is bad wrong.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Damn it! With LENR, there won’t be any CO2. If there’s no CO2, I can’t open a carbon exchange. With out a carbon exchange, I can’t get my hands on any of that climate change. http://www.thelongwaysouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/money-stacks-canadian-i8-470×260.jpg
    With out that climate change, I won’t be able to buy a Bentley.
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/20/article-2296136-18CB0BCC000005DC-850_634x415.jpg

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Without

    • Michel Vandenberghe

      You’re right. With LENR you can change the world, not the easiest part of The LENR project 🙂

      • Alan DeAngelis

        On the other hand, we’ve be able to fly over the Bentleys with our compact direct cycle LENR powered jetpacks.
        https://cdn.amctheatres.com/Media/Default/images/rocketeer.jpg

        • Alan DeAngelis

          …we’ll…
          No brain no pain.

          • Michel Vandenberghe

            Make sense with decentralized but cooperative not only autonomous organization(s)… it’s coming..

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          With some organization to regulate how to share the sky, probably 🙂

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Natural selection worked for the birds but yes, we’ll have to go with some organization.

  • Ted-Z

    Decentralization is of strategic importance. Just a single nuclear electromagnetic pule explosion high in the atmosphere, perhaps even beyond atmosphere (500 km above, the shuttle level) could ruin power grid in most such a big country as the US. The country could be easily moved back for more than 50 years and the losses in human life (starvation etc) would be very large. I do not want to speculate who could do that, but the possibility is there. With the distributed electricity system, the effect of such an EMP weapon/detonation would be very small and strategically unimportant.
    ——————————————————
    Industrial Heat, as the name implies, would not be for a well-distributed energy system. Most likely they are after some half-distributed systems with the energy generation at the city-level, but not below that level.

    • Carl Wilson

      “an EMP weapon/detonation” or one of several types of naturally occurring solar phenomena.

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        More resiliency at any scale….

  • Ophelia Rump

    That was nice bit it missed so much.
    Currently there is the “network” the grid. There is also the fuel. These are bulky and expensive. Expensive to produce and expensive to distribute.

    With LENR there is the designers objective, producing function without the form. To minimize form until there is as little left as possible, and almost only the function remains. In this case the function is energy supplied, on the spot, on demand. The integration would be ubiquitous so the supporting contributors would also be ubiquitous. There is no player who actually makes a contribution who would not benefit.

    The problem is not the integration and distribution model for LENR, the problem is one which already exists and is exerting a powerful negative global pressure right now. The rich are not willing to share the wealth of humanity with the rest of humanity. As the efficiency increases and the automation increases, the unemployment increases, the poverty increases. Customers are transmuted to paupers and the pool of potential customers shrinks by the day. This model loves centralized production and distribution, control and metering.

    This LENR product must become ubiquitous and the new more sharing economy will be empowered to supplant the old greed based economy as it continues it’s death throws.

    The alternative is that without affordable power humanity will go through a dark age as Capitalism dies and the life blood of a new economy “energy” is not there to fuel the new alternative.

  • Rene

    Decentralization has been happening for a while. There are some solar micro-grid neighborhoods, even small generator based systems in rural areas. None of it is massively widespread because even for short distances, there has to be a wired infrastructure. That infrastructure can get expensive quickly. Transformers, lines, poles or underground cables, their maintenance, then add frequency sync logic in the equipment.
    What any compact medium power generation system for domestic use (20KW-ish) brings with it, whether fuel cell, solar, or LENR, is that when the price of the power generator goes below the shared grid infrastructure prices, then the grid goes away along with the sunk costs and recurring maintenance costs.
    But, centralization happens at many pinch points. Even for LENR there will be centralized fuel manufacturing during the time that process is protected under patent, hence a monopoly for 20 years. The fuel prep is the ‘razor blade’ of LENR. If the makers of that fuel offer an inexpensive product, we’ll be fine. If they price it for maximum profit, then we’re back to the old monopoly school of what the market may bear’. In the end, humanitarianism versus exploitation is a human issue.

    • Carl Wilson

      “when the price of the power generator [‘whether fuel cell, solar, or LENR,’] goes below the shared grid
      infrastructure prices, then the grid goes away along with the sunk costs
      and recurring maintenance costs.”
      A very important point. But before that happens we have a situation where
      Cost of (centralized generation) + Cost of (centralized infrastructure) = Cost of (decentralized generation) + Cost of (decentralized infrastructure)
      At this point (or rather somewhat before), the profit from the centralized system starts to crash.

      • Rene

        Yes, you see that with corporations going off-grid to generate their electrical power needs directly. It is cheaper for them to burn natural gas and run generators or fuel cells to generate electricity without having to worry about brownouts or peak pricing. The largest agency that’s been going off-grid is the U.S. Military. As these large customers go off the electrical grid, it forces power companies to shift costs to the rest of its customers, and they start getting snarky about having to pay for power generated by the small producers (notably PV solar grid-tie systems).
        LENR power systems, when they start to come on-stream will quickly cause an economic grid crash. To prevent that, I can see power companies working hard to vilify the safety of LENR so as to make it available solely to them. We’re in for a fight as individuals who want domestic power generation solar, fuel cell or LENR.

        • Michel Vandenberghe

          Once the first product will be available, with massive investments in R&D, technology will evolve fast and it will make sense to bet on short lyfe cycle products. Investment in large units might be at risk…. Nano/micro grids should make sense for local needs and might become a huge busines while the Grid will enable to shift the production from plants during the transition phase. It makes sense considering the Electric vehicle integration schema with Grid. It will be the right time to stop large nuclear plants. Migration will not be driven by the energy sector but by all other sectors. Like in Telecoms value will shift and the winners in the energy sector will be companies providing LENR enablement and nano/micro grids products and services

        • Ciaranjay

          A good point. My assumption was that LENR will firstly be adopted by power companies to replace other forms of generation on the grid. So not too much change. A product for the home is likely a good few years away.
          However if large entities such as industry and goverment/military adopt their own LENR generators, then the grid is much more vunerable than I considered. And of course it is the little people who are stuck with the grid.
          I suppose it depends on how much the burden of paying for the grid model increases vs how much the cost of electricity production via LENR My instinct is we will need the grid for some time.
          I know that in Hawaii the grid model has come under pressure because of solar power. But they do not have LENR to put power onto the grid more cheaply.

        • Mike Rion

          Yes, and it’s an uphill battle.

  • SG

    Centralization breeds corruption. Decentralization is a mega-trend, including decentralization of power and information, in which “power” refers to both the “human authoritative” kind and the “electrical” kind. The Declaration of Independence, followed by the U.S. constitution with three separate branches of government are examples of key inflection points in this mega-trend of decentralization of “human authoritative” power. The Internet is an example of decentralization of information. The Ethereum project will decentralize economic activity and dis-intermediate many of the current middle-men. Bitcoin has the potential to decentralize money. LENR has the potential to decentralize electrical power generation. Decentralization reduces corruption, and should be fostered.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Would you say that people, the masses, are more sensitive now to decentralization and want to be (through the web) more involved in – would be more attentive to – this corruption reduction?

      • SG

        I think there is a real feeling among the masses that corruption among the powerful “elite” is rampant. This feeling will help drive decentralization over the long term. It is a mega-trend, but a slow moving one. The future is bright, I think.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          I do hope you’re right…

    • Carl Wilson

      “LENR has the potential to decentralize electrical power generation. ”
      But only the potential. LENR also presents the potential for increased centralization. To repeat a comment I made on another thread, for LENR it looks like the centralists will be winning over the decentralists. LENR has the weakness of its comprehensive strength. It can made to promote either decentralization or centralization. Solar PV has a strength in one of its major “weaknesses” : It is inherently decentralized and looses much of its value if you try to centralize it.

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        Beyond the short term, the major impact of LENR will be on other sectors than the energy sector. Telecom people were also convinced to keep the intelligence in the core of their network…