Brilliant Light Power Announces October 26th Industry Day, CEO Mills Predicts Power Industry Disruption in 2017

Brilliant Light Power continues to promote its technology, and has recently announced that it will hold a Fall Industry Day on October 26th at its facility in Cranbury, New Jersey where, according to the announcement, there will be “Invitational Public Presentation by Noted Speakers from Telecomm, Climate Change, Academic, and Market Strategy Fields with SunCell® Demonstration”

In connection with this, the Next Big Future website has published an interview with BLP’s CEO Randell Mills (

In this interview, Randell Mills is bold enough to claim that BLP will ‘disrupt the entire power industry in 2017’ with the introduction of the SunCell. Mills said an off-grid system could be created by combining a SunCell, which creates light, with a PV (photovoltaic) converter to produce electricity. Mills says that the setup requires a ‘small parasitic load’.

The big question that many people are asking is what the COP (ratio of energy in to energy out) is. Here’s an excerpt from the Next Big Future interview:

NBF Question – I am interested to know what I would see in a live demonstration that would prove that 65-150 times input power for the output power is being produced.

Randall Mills Answer – We shown these types of power gains as part of series of demonstrations on June 28th. The video is publicly available:

Moreover, we have five validation reports of power gain results of this magnitude at a remarkable power level of about 1 MW in less than a liter volume. These reports could be made available to you with some agreement on usage and with our redaction of the identify of the trace oxide chemical used

If this all pans out as Mills predicts, this would indeed be a significant development for energy production. While BLP may not technically fall into the LENR category (Mills is emphatic that it is not), this is certainly something we’ll be keeping an eye on here at ECW.

100 Replies to “Brilliant Light Power Announces October 26th Industry Day, CEO Mills Predicts Power Industry Disruption in 2017”

  1. Until someone decides to learn his theory. No one will replicate it anytime soon. He will be without competition I think. Hmm, and what’s with this trace oxide chemical used? Secret sauce?

    1. I predict a Low Work Function Material (LWFM) probably as identified by Celani, then Iwamura… CaO

      Melting point: 2,572 °C So no- problem as nano particles in Silver.

      Will re-form after becoming plasma.

  2. When any of these LENR-related technologies reaches commercial viability, their implications are YUGE.

    A number of Arab countries only can fund their food imports and their internal socialistic welfare state through sales of oil. This is the case for Libya and certain the Kingdom of Saud.

    It will take decades for LENR-related energy sources to be rolled out into general use and oil will not be displaced entirely. But if oil is displaced even by 25%, we could see a collapse and revolution of these governments. But a revolution to what end? Almost certainly the revolution would have a connection to radical Islam if funded by Iran or maybe even ISIS. So, we could end up with a wonderful, history-making clean energy technology on the one hand, and a stone-age jihadist Caliphate that was hell-bent on forcing everyone within the range of its missiles to convert, submit or die resisting.

    1. The energetic revolution may actually increase demand for raw sources including oil, not decrease. Lotta oil is still used in plastic industry.

    2. I do agree it would cause revolutions and mass immigration movements. Another huge issue the the amount of deflation free energy would cause. Just think how much cheaper things would be if the energy cost was removed from the supply chain. Prices of items/services could 50-75% cheaper or more depending on the energy costs of a particular item/service. With the huge amount of fixed debt in the industrialized nations it would cause massive debt defaults as the revenue/profit wouldn’t be enough to service the debt.

      At first companies would have huge profit margins but competition will erode profits and pushe prices down. New entries into the market that don’t have debt are going to crush established debt filled companies even though they probably aren’t as efficient.

    3. try thinking about the exchange of information and awareness that the internet age brings and interject that into the new energy/jihadist Caliphate scenario. I believe 99.9 % of the people, made aware of freely available cheap energy and the life made possible from such, will simply tell the pushers of jihad to take their Caliphate, and Shove It!

  3. 1MW from a litre sounds impressive but what does he actually mean?
    For instance how long would the hydrinos last before the fuel needs to be replenished?

    1. The fuel is just ordinary hydrogen, extracted from water, and it is injected constantly, and lasts forever. Hydrogen converts to hydrinos, and those are vented away. Hydrinos are harmless waste product, over 90 % of all matter is already hydrinos (dark matter).

      1. I’d be interested to know how long it takes to burn through the hydrogen to create 1MW. Especially with water being scarce in some areas of the world. They could desalinate though and that might be the way to go.

  4. I don’t like that they remain coy about discussing power rather than energy, but I do like that they are upping the ante. The more they expose themselves to public scrutiny and make definitive statements about commercialization the higher the likelihood that they are not just trolling for more investment money.

      1. Sure but when the claim is over-unity it’s the energy accounting that really matters. Average out over average in for an extended period of time.

        They skirt that issue by talking about things like many megawatts released over tiny fractions of a second.

        1. LENR, I am probably being daft but many units, if there output can be timed, all putting out energy in sequence would lead to a continuous output.

          1. That’s what I’m after, average or continuous out over average/continuous in.

            Their communications always seem to carefully avoid providing this information.

      1. They certainly deserve some return after watching their investment languish through decades of Mill’s broken promises and false predictions. Lets hope that he finally has something this time, but history would not favor that outcome.

    1. As soon as those CPV panels are ready. Those need to be manufactured and assembled in ball shape around the tungsten ball (bottom half of that is visible in the latest video).

      1. No, you have misunderstood badly that. SunCell does not need mains power at all, how could it work in all those vehicles you can find in their business plan if it needs mains power?

          1. Of course initial startup needs a battery like in a normal ICE car, but there is seldom need to stop SunCell once started, it can run all the time.

          2. Capacitors to start the reaction, then power from the CPV”s to loop some back to keep the reaction going and stable. I am pretty sure that is the direction BLP is headed.

  5. True or not, this might motivate others to come to the market earlier. If MFMP and/or me356 demonstrate LENR this all could explode (figuratively) into the public’s attention. I’m not holding my breath.

  6. I still don’t think that this technology works, so far it all looks like the elaborated scam for me. I just want to see some hydrinos generated with it. If it works, then rather as some kind of fusion or transmutation in electric arc. Mills states the following (page 20)

    “The optical energy density obtained by integrating the energy density spectrum measured with the Ocean Optic spectrometer was 5.86 J/m2, recorded at a distance of 353.6 cm.”

    This would give 918 W in total. But then he assumes the measurement area to be just the window of the spectrometer. But it doesn’t actually matter, there are already many free energy solutions in the game and the potential investors can already diversify their risk comfortably.

  7. I hope Mills’ shows a SunCell that actually continuously outputs more energy then it consumes and not a SunCell that outputs a megawatt during a short time like a micro second or so and continuously needs 10 kW to run…. If he can show a COP>1, then history will change.

  8. I’m not afraid. Things are much different from 27 years ago. Patents have been issued. 100’s if not 1000’s of good quality papers have been written. Government reports have been issued supporting LENR. Credible research is being funded. And there are many (dozens ?) of viable businesses working in this area.

    No doubt if LENR becomes mainstream there will be those that attack it. Some of it is legitimate–like safety and security concerns. Others will attack based on self-interest. But these kinds of things should be brought out into the open and debated.

  9. I will tell you what will be shown at the demonstration day so that you don’t have to wait a month.

    1. There will be a power point with graphical drawings of how nonexistent devices are supposed to work.

    2. There will be references to how they have “engineering designs” or “engineered systems” that are intended to convey the impression that they are close to completion when they really just have sketches.

    3. There will be a lot of discussion and many slides about how profitable it would be to have an infinite energy device and all the things you could use it for (This is true but irrelevant).

    4. There will be something that sparks or makes lights for 30 seconds. It will be shared on youtube.

    5. There will be no disclosure of energy balance.

    6. There will be another prediction of a high power industrial product which is only six months away despite the fact that they haven’t even demonstrated a working self sustaining prototype in the four years since this technology was disclosed.

    1. You are right. And the jan 17 presentation will be the same. The interesting presentation will be in june 17. The last critical component of the system is the concentrator cell. I hope they are working close with the manufacturer of these cells to establish optimal working conditions. Placing a pv cell in front of a ultra hot bright white radiating metal dome seems pretty challenging. But that is their problem.

      In the meantime I am asking someone to look into the question of how Mills achieved to calculate the binding energies and structure of a vast amount of molecules with analytic equations.

    2. Unfortunately I have to agree. Mills’ entire operation just screams scam to me. I would *love* to be wrong about it, but I get a much worse impression from him than from Rossi. And I certainly don’t have 100% confidence in Rossi either.

      The problem with the sun cell is that we haven’t yet seen anything that is fundamentally different that what you would see if you just produced an electrical arc. At least with Rossi we now have a great deal of insights into how the 1MW E-Cat powerplant was designed, thanks to reverse-engineering efforts by Engineer48 and MFMP. And Rossi’s designs really do seem to suggest he has a real heat source. But Mills? There just isn’t enough of the design details visible for anyone to analyze, and so it just looks like a staged circus act.

      Again, I hope I’m wrong. But my confidence in Mills is under 5%.

      1. I have to disagree with you both. If you have been watching all the videos they have produced over the last few years and you can clearly see they have made progress. Saying it looks like an electrical arc is like saying a dogbone is just a glorified bar heater.

  10. Epi
    I agree that his work and workers are not like a scammer’s. If you review the videos on their website the progression from single shots analyzed in a bomb callorimeter to the one posted recently with 2 minuets of constant smoothly controlled brilliant reaction. Some of the same crew that was in the first video are still with them. I have recently read the book by Brett Holverstott about him and the development of his theory and the sun cell. It reveals a very smart dedicated person and reasonable progress from hard work. The book is very believable because Mr. Halverstott used to work for Mills and was in on the science and calculations that went into the theory. My wife who has a background in biological chemistry was struck the images of the molecules that come from Mills’ binding force calculations and their 5 pointed symmetry she sees in many aspects of living organisms from flowers to fruits.

  11. Our sun is also throwing away hydrogen all the time. Mostly, about 60%, it is converted to Helium by fusion but the rest (40%) is converted to hydrinos in sun corona. Anyway both are waste products, and eventually sun runs out of fuel, hydrogen.
    Similar situation here, if/when we start using our own hydrogen (water) reservoir, we run out of it, but it takes millions of years.

    1. I would be curious to see some numbers on that, just because we have never “burned up” our oceans as fuel before. I have some starter numbers if anyone has any fuel consumption numbers for this process:
      2012 global energy consumption: 158,000,000,000 MWh
      Liters of seawater: 1,373,694,673,713,938,725,048

      Maybe it could actually even out the rise in sea level due to melting polar caps. 😉

  12. He needs UV photo-voltaic cells that are higher efficiency than the 5-7% ones that have been demonstrated by others to date. With the majority of his power supposedly in the UV ban below 400nm it is curious that you don’t see Mills or his assistants wearing more protection as UV as strong as he claims would cause near instant sun burns.

    1. UV is converted to visible light using tungsten globe. All radiation, including UV, is heating tungsten to 3000K, and it works like a huge halogen light, There is, or will be halogen gas between that globe and CPV panels. Those panels are about 40% efficient.
      And those tests are run inside a glove box with heavy UV protection (and halogen gas inside).

      1. The tungsten globe is a good idea for safety but will cost some efficiency. The UV is not currently being changed to visible by a tungsten globe. Currently his experiments/demonstrations happen in a clear box with the full reaction in view. Granted certain types of glass absorb UV but that would mean that the glass is absorbing several kilowatts of power That absorption should heat the glass greatly, otherwise kilowatts of UV light are bathing those in the room.

        1. One video showed closed cell, not outside but a peek inside from a tiny window. Developement is better to do openly in a glove box to better see what is going on to tune the process. In the latest video the bottom half of the tungsten globe is visible. The reaction has become much smoother, so the tuning has been succesfull.
          The glove box would become very hot, but they must be cooling it heavily for these longer duration tests.

          1. /* The glove box would become very hot, but they must be cooling it heavily for these longer duration tests.*/

            You just explained, how the energy production could be measured without any UV photo-voltaic cells

        2. Why to convert the UV for some visible light, if you just need the heat for vapor generation? It’s conversion to electricity works with high efficiency (over 90% if you use Stirling motor, over 60% with dry steam turbine)

          1. So stirling efficiency is 34% and very difficult to make better. And is bulky and have many moving parts.
            Solar cells are developing all the time, now they have 40% efficiency, soon more.

    2. /* He needs UV photo-voltaic cells that are higher efficiency than the 5-7% ones that have been demonstrated by others to date */

      This is nonsense, at these energy density demonstrated the water cooled mantle of reactor would run as efficiently. IMO Mills just evades the direct calorimetric measurement of the COP, because it would cool down all his investors.

  13. It amuses me how so many folk here talk of Mills Hydrino as possibly ‘scam’. I know of one person here in this thread who also stated some weeks back he would not bother to read the recently published book about Mills (an outstanding work) nor has he read any of Mills theory papers from the BLP website.

    My challenge to them is if you don’t bother to do in-depth due diligence on the existing published papers vs the poor quality posted ‘opinion’, why even bother saying anything.

    My challenge to the nay Sayers is read Brett Hovenstott’s book then let us have a sensible debate about what Brett says. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss about Mills with anyone who won’t do some decent research and Hovenstott’s book is an *excellent* place to start.

    Doug Marker

    1. Some people are just biased they are offended by just the thought of certain individuals being right. Be it Mills or Rossi there are some who are so adamant that they are wrong that it borders on a potential psychosis. This detachment from reality is ultimately where we get the strongest opponents, They know what they know and nothing you can do will shake that. unfortunately you will never convince them till the device is in their face and operating across several public venues.. even then they will not acknowledge the inventor and attempt to give credit to the past or another colleague that worked with the inventor.

      1. I do believe in cold fusion, E-Cat, EMDrive, MEG and magnetic motors, water clusters, because I understand their principle – but the existence of hydrino has no roots in dense aether model. I even don’t doubt, that some hydrino-like transitions manifest itself in deep ultraviolet spectra. But even if the hydrino could exist, it should be metastable and its formation should consume energy, not to produce it. I’m more opened to believe, that Mills is working with some sort of cold fusion or even resonant free energy generation from plasma,

        1. A very very simple and basic question, have you read Hovenstott’s book ? – he explains the answer to your point well detail and in a very considered and detailed way.

          Also, why should the electron dropping to an even lower state consume energy rather than release it ? – that idea flies in the face of conservation of energy. The electron is held in ground state because the H atom in an unexcite state matches the positive energy of its nucleus. The known laws say that exciting the electron allows it to take in energy. Dropping to ground state does the revers and releases energy.

          The claimed principle for dropping below ground state is that certain events (a catalysing event in this case) allows certain atoms that experience a catalysing event (as explained very well in Hovenstott’s) book allows the catalysing atom to absorb quantative packets of photon energy from the H atom’s electron which then triggers it to drop to a quantised new lower orbit. The catalysing atom (which can be one of several capable atom types) then reverts to its normal state giving off quantised amounts of light mostly in the EUV range.

          Once the H atom’s electron has dropped to the lower than ground state orbit, it will no longer be able to jump back up to ground state because the electron is unable to return to ground state (again, this aspect is explained in considerable detail in Hovenstott’s book).

          The book only costs $14 in kindle form. Kindle books can be read on iPads and iPhones and Androind devices plus PCs with the free download of a kindle reader. I can personally promise that no one will be contaminated by reading the book. In fact the opposite is the more probable reaction. 🙂

          Just as Andrea Rossi’s claims deserve fair attention and an open minded interpretation, so should Mill’s work and ideas. For those who refuse to read about Mill’s efforts as well explained in Brett Hovenstott’s book, please just give it a try.


          Doug Marker

          1. /* why should the electron dropping to an even lower state consume energy rather than release it */

            Because just the (zero point) energy of vacuum fluctuations would throw them back. The vacuum behaves like the turbulent water: it looks still at the surface, but the more close arrangements of particles falling in it will get disintegrated. From the same reason the fluid helium never freezes at room pressure: the vacuum forces keep its atom in neverending motion and they disintegrate the helium crystal.

          2. This is not a theory – this is just an explanation fundamental quantum state, i.e. the fact, why the atoms don’t collapse into atom nuclei. If the Mills theory wants to prove the opposite, it should provide the mechanism, which would bypass it – not just negate this fact.

            Note that the hydrogen atoms don’t collapse even under way larger pressure, like this one at the center of Sun. In strict contradiction to fusion, which runs smoothly under these circumstances, the Mills theory should explain, why the hydrino formation doesn’t happen under these circumstances.

          3. Aha, this is why I asked if you had read Hovenstott’s explanation. IMHO he does an excellent job of explaining this.

            He also provides extensive details of testing and scientific evaluation.

            I can understand your POV – but if you can explain if and where Hovenstott’s got this aspect wrong, that would help greatly.


            Doug Marker.

          4. /* Hovenstott’s explanation. IMHO he does an excellent job of explaining this */

            Apparently this job wasn’t so great, if you cannot replicate it at place here (no puns intended)… 😉

          5. Hmmm 🙂 – do you really believe I could reproduce what amounts to about 1/3 of Hovenstott’s book here in 50 words ?. I am certain you are not seriously hinting at that.
            If it was *that* simple it would have been discovered decades ago.

            What you ‘seem’ to be saying is you won’t read Brett’s book because you can argue against it better when you don’t know what is in it. I will certainly agree that Hovenstoot has a far greater grasp of the whole process than myself – I am still working through the maths of Quantum and have a way to go.

            Hovenstott 1st explains Mills theory on the electron orbitsphere -then he moves from that to how the electron despite the ‘uncertainty principle’ can drop to lower than ground state and the book lists documented experiments that support Mills findings. This is *no* simple 50 word post.

            But as long as some among us decline to read Brett’s book, my mission to convey what I am learning from it, is a lost cause. Let’s just dig in and stick with our own comfort level 🙂


            Doug Marker

          6. Thanks Zephir, Mills is bunk. I hear you.

            Am sorry I haven’t learned anything useful from your opinions.


            Doug Marker.

          7. The electron orbitsphere theory is bunk, no need to take it personally. The spheroids don’t explain complex angled shapes of molecules.

          8. Only comment I can add further is “read Brett’s Book” – maybe someone else with more patience than I have will explain why (on this very issue of the water molecule and several others).


            Doug Marker.

          9. Zephir, how in the world can you say that the theory is bunk when you don’t know about it? Mills doesn’t just explain the angles of molecules, he predicts them. He successfully predicts the shapes of much more complicated molecules than water with his Millsian software. You don’t know this, because you haven’t bothered to look. You haven’t bothered to investigate Mill’s book which has been free to download for years.

          10. /* he successfully predicts the shapes of much more complicated molecules than water with his Millsian software */

            This software is just silly adhoced generator of ball models of molecules from already known data, just face it. The shape of water molecule linked above speaks for itself. Frankly, if Mills is dumb crackpot and fraudster in something, than just with “his” Millsian software. I don’t believe in generation of energy with hydrino formation, but Mills can still find something new in his experiments. This doesn’t apply to “his” Millsian software.

          11. I erased my first comment, and I’ll be polite. When I’m done with the Kindle book I bought, I’ll email it to you. No cost. I have no opinion yet on it, but at least you can stop trolling and aggravating everyone with saying more than “thanks. I’ll look into it.” One is never too smart to learn something interesting that challenges one’s “Belief” system. Those who wish to be heard but won’t hear with a somewhat open mind is wasting a possibly important opportunity.

            Of course, that works both ways…I should go get a QM for Dummies book. DO you know of one I would benefit from reading? I’m a math guy, finite rings in particular when I was younger (mid-30’s), but I picked up some Fourier for personal development one year, and now that I’m about to turn 65, why not some QM? My question and offer are serious.

            Mills’ REAL work takes a while to read and then cross the t’s and dot the i’s before moving forward to the next equation. I wouldn’t blame you for not reading it carefully. But Hovenstott’s personal bio about his learning curve? C.mon…don’t be lazy….

          12. Mills model does explain water, but how would you know since you admitted you don’t read Mills book or papers?

          13. No, the ‘quantum vacuum’ does not ‘explain’ atomic stability. That is not standard quantum mechanics.

  14. I have been a believer for a very long time following your strong reasoning. I believe many commenters may not have followed BLP as closely, reading all the documents with an open mind is very important in this case. I think Rossi and BLP have been in a close race for the past 5 yrs, I had Rossi ahead late in 2015, but with what Mills has been showing lately, including his time-line (which is much more specific than it has been in the past), I now believe BLP has surged into a solid lead with Rossi’s legal woes not helping him.

    1. Perhaps Rossi was never in the race at all. It’s curious that Rossi’s claims emerged shortly after Mills announced his Nickel-based catalysis demonstration in early 2008. Mills quickly determined that power density wouldn’t scale up and abandon Nickel compounds for other approaches. Rossi is still using Nickel as far as I know.

  15. If it is a super exothermic chemical reaction, I assume there should be some sort of stable product(s) that can be isolate in gram quantities. Has he isolated any stable hydrino salts from these exothermic chemical reactions that have been characterized?

  16. Crazy thought. Under these conditions, could oxygen-18 water absorb its protons to become neon-20 in an excited state that fissions into oxygen-16 and helium-4.

    2 H(1) + O(18) > Ne(20)* > O(16) + He(4) 16.1 MeV

    Maybe they could run their reaction using commercially available oxygen-18 water.

      1. Similar idea: During a thunderstorm the following reaction may occur:
        O(16) + N(15) > P(31)
        This would explain the global spread of small quantities of Phosphor in the upper ground layers.
        At the same time your reactions may take place, which I think are also likely during a lightning strike.

        1. I think the world will soon come to realise the LENR is occurring not only everywhere in the observable biosphere with varying statistical probability – but also, every second of every day within us.

  17. Not optimistic at all. How many times has BLP been on the verge? And they love to tout power, which is meaningless, instead of energy balance. And it looks like it would need very routine maintenance. While I follow their developments, their track record is not great. Then again, Rossi’s isn’t great either. Negative mood today I guess.

    1. I know how you feel.

      Rossi is not filling me with excitement because he has made too many Earth shaking announcements and too few confirmations. But what has been confirmed (to my satisfaction) is still lightyears ahead of Mills, whose confirmations are so limp as to be in practice non-existent. I will believe Mills when we get an independent third-party confirmation of high COP. Otherwise, his is nothing more than scientific wanking.

  18. /* Mills and his crew definitly believe in what they are doing. */

    This is just what bothers me too. If the hydrino is most stable form of matter, why most of matter (at least hydrogen one) is not already formed with hydrinos? If the hydrino is the most stable form of hydrogen and Mills already prepared the gram samples of hydrides, it shouldn’t be a problem to isolate the hydrino in its pure form or at least detect thermogravitationaly or mass spectroscopy. The contemporary nuclear chemistry has a tools for exact characterization of microgram amounts (of very unstable compounds in addition) already.

    One thing is to have an expensive & secret reactor producing energy, which must be replicated first without breaching the IP – or to have a publicly available compound, which can be immediately analyzed in thousands of labs around the whole world. But it did never happen.

    Regarding Mills experiments, I still missing the elementary calorimetry in his demos.

    1. Most of matter is hydrinos = dark matter, more than 90%.
      Hydrinos has been detected with all those methods you mentioned, just read those scientific papers.

        1. You should read the Holverstott book, at least around this quote:
          “In a monumental 26–page paper published in 2000, Mills presented the analysis of dozens of new hydrino hydride compounds and clusters, using TOF–SIMS, XPS, XRD, FTIR, NMR, and Raman spectroscopy (Mills 2000).”

          1. This is just what I’m talking about – these compounds should be confirmed in another independent lab – not just with Mills.

  19. I don’t give a fig which category BLP fits into just so long as it gets a high COP and it is otherwise harmless to children and other living things.

    Somehow Mills’ confirmations don’t fill me with confidence.

    But we will see what we will see. I look forward to progress.

  20. I have been looking forward to this for a long time.
    Since he didn’t try to befool me in his amazing books, I believe in Dr. Mills’ theory, however incomplete they may be.
    I am fairly confidant that what Dr. Rossi did to oil-trend, will be further emphasized by Mills. Rossi was a signal for big-money divestment, now Mills will hit the panic button for the masses. Between the two, the race will begin, energy will be trivialized, and humanity “should” elevate from present scarcity-paradigm.
    Best of luck.

  21. Please, stop trying to imply, I’m called Mills “dumb crackpot” or “fraudster”. Where did I use such a words for him? And stop with this silly psychologising of my rational objections. The Millsian model doesn’t illustrate, neither explains structure of water.

  22. /* Significantly, the ignition current was turned off completely at one
    point and the reaction was self-sustaining, presumably due to ambient
    heat. */

    This is the most interesting sentence, but I would want to see it on video.

    /* Production scaling should allow the cost to decrease to $32/kW.
    Operating cost is about $0.001/kWH. Both production and operating costs
    are order(s) of magnitude lower than conventional technologies.*/

    The electricity is currently sold for $15/kW – or not? It would correspond the COP 0.5, not on the order of 50 to 500…

      1. And the cell survives 20 years, about the lifetime of a car. But at least initially all SunCells should be running all the time 24/7, so normal private car is not the first target.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *