Announcing the Development of $20 Million+ XPrize for Abundant Clean Energy Technologies (David Niebauer)

The following post has been submitted by David Niebauer

The future of humanity requires a new primary energy generation technology that is clean, abundant, safe, and affordable. Renewables such as solar PV and wind do not provide the energy density or reliability necessary for a true energy transformation. We have relied on the oldest technology known to man – the burning of fossil fuels – for far too long. It is time to aggressively expand our search.

I am convinced that we are on the cusp of uncovering new primary sources of energy that will radically transform our world. I am on a mission to discover and promote these new technologies. Together with my partners, I have executed an agreement with the X-Prize Foundation to develop a Prize to stimulate innovation, investment and public awareness.

The XPrize Foundation has engaged their sister organization, HeroX, to use a crowd-sourcing platform to help develop the parameters and testing protocols for the Prize itself. You can link to the prize development challenge here: https://herox.com/AbundantCleanEnergy
We have created a dedicated Wiki designed for collecting citations, relevant references, and background research relating to different energy generation technologies.

Among other areas, we will be investigating:

• Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) of various designs
• Energy generators sourcing energy from Ionosphere/Van Allen Belt/Vacuum
• Energy capture from gravity
• Energy capture from permanent magnets
• More hydrogen generated from water than predicted by chemistry
• Zero Point Energy
• Advanced solar technologies resulting in higher efficiency – eg., optical rectenna
• Reactionless generators and/or regenerative motors

The prize development process will run through March 2017 after which we intend to participate in the XPrize Visioneering Summit to be held in the fall of 2017. Soon thereafter we anticipate launching a $20 Million + X-Prize for Abundant Clean Energy.
Why an X-Prize?

“An XPRIZE is a highly leveraged, incentivized prize competition that pushes the limits of what’s possible to change the world for the better. It captures the world’s imagination and inspires others to reach for similar goals, spurring innovation and accelerating the rate of positive change.” — from the XPrize Foundation website

We have decided to pursue an XPrize for new energy technologies for three primary reasons. First, the XPrize format is designed to stimulate innovation and investment. We anticipate that a number of teams will compete for the prize and that private investors will be spurred by the prize to provide capital to advance the technologies sufficiently to compete for the prize. Second, we would like to bring to public attention the many inventors and development groups around the world working on revolutionary energy solutions. Finally, there appears to be a public perception that this quest is impossible. We want to move the perceived impossibility into the sphere of the possible.

I am looking for people and teams who might be interested in both the prize development stage, as well as teams and technologies that might compete for the larger grand prize.  Also, I am putting together a Scientific Advisory Board to lend credibility to the process.  Do you know of anyone I should be talking to? If so, please let me know in your comments to this post.

David Niebauer
XPrize Development Sponsor Team

  • LION

    I have recently posted some of my X Ray pictures from my LENR experiments on my Disqus profile. Enjoy. I HOPE you win through with your X-prize proposal, all the best.

  • Allan Shura

    Excellent. I have developed/discovered what looks much like zero point energy circuit for DC motor generators. I am looking for technology transfer funding with a university or private sources. Only
    one tax funded university in my region accepts innovative inventions (the University of Calgary)
    outside of the faculty and students. I now await their response since there is a huge carbon problem
    and only gradual and part way methods have been tried in the area.

  • LION

    Stephen • 4 days ago

    Wow! This is great news. Just the fact that LENR is mentioned will raise its profile and bring people’s attention to it. And who knows what else will come up independently or in synergy.

    It’s really the right X-prize to make in these times. It could be the most important x- prize ever.

    Thanks to David and the X-prize team.

    I hope everyone can embrace this opportunity. Let’s make it happen.

    3 • Reply•Share ›

    Hi David, I fully agree with Stephen, clovis ray and TomR.
    Please look at my Previous Posts on Full Profile on DISQUS, just mouse over this posts blank picture and it will come up. I will be watching the development of the PRIZE with interest. THANKS.

    • Stephen

      Thanks LION. I do still believe that. Done in the right way it could be amazing and more than that world changingly important. It’s about LENR but also a lot more technologies too. Any one or any combination of these things could improve the lives of everyone and open whole new sciences and fields of study for future development.

      I also understand the concerns though and it is important that they are raised.

      The importance of the project needs to be above certain things to fulfill its potential and any open revelations openly given will really help that. At the same time peoples and companies rights need to be protected from miss use. If it can be done as inclusively as possible that would also bring benefits but maybe that needs to wait for the right time.

      From David’s words I think he really has this in mind already. it’s important it’s carefully considered so that maximum benefit can be achieved from the project. I think maybe he raised it here so these kinds of issues can be considered early on during the development of the project. Which i think is also smart.

      I do respect the initiative and would love to see it work the way we all dream of and can’t wait to see what ideas and surprises come up.

  • Rene

    That’s all very nice and then there is what I pointed out earlier.

  • Gerard McEk

    Still, batteries will help only for short term storage. Long term (season-) storage is far too expensive using batteries/capacitors.

  • Gerard McEk

    Energy storage is no solution to our future energy problem. Small scale it may only help to flatten the short time energy demand.
    This site supports LENR as a possible future energy source.

  • Rene

    But to get there you first have to cede your rights. What is it with these onerous contracts?
    THE TERMS OF USE INCLUDE A CLASS ACTION WAIVER AND A WAIVER OF JURY TRIALS, AND REQUIRE BINDING ARBITRATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS TO RESOLVE DISPUTES.

    • Stephen

      Oh that’s a pitty I had though and hoped it’s fully inclusive regardless of background and means. Did other previous X-Prizes include this kind of clause?

      • Ciaranjay

        So you demonstrate your technology and they may give you $20 million.
        No chance of attracting Rossi then, he normally works the other way round.
        And he certainly won’t agree to those terms.

    • Gerard McEk

      Below, gregha found that David Niebauer may be related to Brillouin, which is funded? by IH….
      IH is trying to collect more knowhow/IP via a black door it seems.

  • John Williamson

    If the billions that would almost certainly reward anyone who can develop a revolutionary energy source have not been enough incentive up until now, why would 20 million more make a difference?

    If this money is given to the best project, and not necessarily a successful project, then it will attract those (like Rossi) who can persuade people they have a revolutionary source, without actually delivering one, and that does not promote the best science.

  • Omega Z

    E-cat technology requires alternate current to work.

    It would require batteries and inverters among other hardware. It’s complexity has now been increased that everyone will question it’s validity.

    • builditnow

      Omega Z, … respectfully … your statement is rubbish … DocSiders is correct, with a COP of say 8, a 20% efficient heat to electricity conversion system can make a closed loop system with a modest amount of storage. My credentials are EE power engineering focused on power generation. For storage, batteries would probably be best, although other options could work, such as a flywheel. A modified micro turbine would do the trick, and, besides the 1000 watt lights, you could heat one or more hot tubs with the waste heat as well, that would be really convincing then. 1000 watts of lights and a couple of steaming hot tubs with no connection to outside power for a month or more.

      But, I don’t think Rossi would go for it, $20 million is not interesting enough, he’s interested in much more at this point.

      However, it could prompt others to come out of the wood work with their working reactors for the $20 million.

      I disagree with DocSiders on the issue of Rossi’s reactors working.

      Judging from Industrial Heat’s behavior, … “my read is” … Rossi’s reactors work … , but, he withheld some secrets so that IH cannot make a working reactor. Therefore, IH refused the $89 million payment, and Rossi largely expected IH to refuse to pay, demonstrated by filing the law suit the day after payment was due. Rossi sued IH because he has given them most of the secrets and wants to keep what he gave them under wraps. Rossi also wants a much more robust contract with IH than he currently has, because this contract is worth multi trillions. Once this contract with IH has been litigated in US federal district court, it can only be put into question by appeal to the federal court of appeal and finally to the US supreme court. Once the supreme court decides, there is no further it can go. Basically, the contract is virtually bullet proof once this current court case is decided. Rossi will then probably give IH the final secrets, probably with a more expansive and tightly controlled contract that he feels protects him.

      • Rene

        Much agreement. Inverters now run in the 95%+ efficiency range. Decent batteries are 90% efficient in round trip storage/delivery. It’s fairly straightforward. And besides, if it is heat in the form of steam to electricity conversion, the output will definitely be AC.

        • builditnow

          Rene, yes, the whole rig could be on a pallet that a fork lift could be moved around, eliminating the hidden wires etc. possibility. The skeptics will, of course stay in denial, but, if it’s a display for the average person, they will see that it works.

          In any case, if Rossi has what he says he has, which I’m fairly sure he does as explained above, he can at any time make a thoroughly convincing demo, in fact, many of them. It seems there is no advantage for him to do so, as his goal is to become the leader in LENR, so far ahead of the competition that it’s very difficult for them to catch up. Let’s hope that the $20 million xprize cracks the whole thing open and Rossi has to show us what he has.

          Omega Z, apologies if I missed your point, I have not read all the posts, I was just skimming and came across your post.

      • Omega Z

        Did you read DocSiders post. I ignored the fact that a Quark is a mere 20 watts because I comprehended his intent. He was proposing a closed loop.

        Did you read my post. I responded with the fact that it would require a lot of additional hardware making the setup complex. Your own post expanded on my point. Much hardware. Complexity.

        I’m suprised by your post. Maybe you’re just having a bad day and didn’t grasp my point. You have been following ECW long enough that you should know as well as I that complexity is the skeptics playground. The claims of hidden wires, DC feed through the ground wire, etc, etc, etc….

        A complex setup will leave us where we are today. Everyone wanting another demo/test. To make a difference, the next demo needs to stick with simplicity. Simple enough even a naive novice will understand whether it works as claimed or not.

        • John Williamson

          A demonstration that does not need an input is simpler, even if it has more components. You can make its isolation transparent, and hidden non-nuclear power sources can be excluded with time. It’s harder to fake *zero* input, which is why free-energy claims almost always need an external source of energy.

  • bfast

    20 million more reasons to get either Rossi or Mills to get their technologies out the door.

  • US_Citizen71

    Frank the link above doesn’t work it appears to have a trailing space as part of the link as the url has %20 on the end when you reach the website. removing the %20 allows you to arrive at the correct page.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Optical rectenna is a known idea, it even has a wikipedia page which describes nicely the challenges. Worth studying, but not a revolution unless the panels are also much cheaper than today’s.
    Power associated with ionospheric currents varies a lot, but ~100 GW is typical. Too small to revolutionise energy market.
    Solar power satellites are missing from the list. I used to be interested in them before Rossi came up. They have serious challenges, but at least they are scalable.

    • Warthog

      The key challenge to solar power satellites is low-cost access to orbit. SpaceX (Elon Musk) has developed the necessary technology (recoverable boosters) to make that happen. Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos) is not far behind. BO has a recoverable booster technology, but it is currently only sub-orbital.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Generation of orbital debris is another issue. Musk’s booster could cut cost about 50% if it goes well (not more because the second stage is still expendable).

  • sam
  • gregha

    This is probably the Brillouin guy, David Niebauer, Vice President, Business Development & General Counsel – See more at: http://brillouinenergy.com/about/leadership/#sthash.ZFPb9KmS.dpuf

    • Ciaranjay

      Good find. Interesting.

    • Gerard McEk

      Interesting! So IH (who works together with Brillouin) still seeks to further collect knowledge via a back door?

      • Brillouin representatives told me last year that they have no formal or informal contacts with IH, although Darden apparently made a small investment in Brillouin, but before forming IH.

        Yet, Rossi seems convinced about the contrary.

  • Stephen

    Wow! This is great news. Just the fact that LENR is mentioned will raise its profile and bring people’s attention to it. And who knows what else will come up independently or in synergy.

    It’s really the right X-prize to make in these times. It could be the most important x- prize ever.

    Thanks to David and the X-prize team.

    I hope everyone can embrace this opportunity. Let’s make it happen.

  • Ciaranjay

    XPrize sounds like an excellent idea to get things stirred up.
    The list of areas is a mixed bag.
    Gravity is such a weak force compared to the others, unless you drop somethinge the size of Everest from orbit.
    Zero point energy will have some mainstream physicists frothing at the mouth.
    But there is nothing to lose by being as open to ideas as possible at this stage, we need a breakthrough of some kind.

    • Warthog

      Small scale hydroelectric and Hoover Dam both use gravity. It doesn’t take a huge drop or a huge mass to be useful.

      • Ciaranjay

        Fair point, but we get a free ride on that with rainfall powered by the sun.
        I think hydroelectric will tend to be a smaller component than say solar.
        You can also get small amounts of energy by putting a device into a shoe so as the persons weight moves onto it there is an energy transfer, but it is extremely modest.
        I suppose it could be argued that tidal devices that transfer up and down motion into energy can be classed as using gravitational energy.
        My point is that as gravitation is many orders of magnitude less powerful than the other forces so I would expect any game changing technology to come from those, or maybe even something unforseen.

      • John Williamson

        Like Ciaranjay says, the source of power in most hydro plants is solar; gravity only represents an intermediate storage mechanism. You can tap gravity for power by using the tides. This can make a contribution, but not a revolutionary one. I’m not aware of any other claims that actually tap gravitational energy that don’t involve claims of perpetual motion and violations of the conservation of energy.

        • Warthog

          Well, if you go back far enough, even fossil fuels were once solar energy. The only “real” independent energy currently available on earth is that bound into nuclei. And even THAT was ultimately derived from solar (or stellar) sources.

          • John Williamson

            True, but how far you go back is a critical difference.

            Fossil fuels are not being renewed by solar at the rate we consume it. Hydro is. Fossil fuels can be used up even while the sun continues to shine, and could continue to be used without the sun. Hydro power is continually renewed by the sun, and would disappear without it.

            You can live on your savings or your salary, but if you lose your job, only your savings are available. Fossil fuels are like savings, and it’s appropriate to consider them as an independent source. Hydro is like a salary, and whether you’re paid in dollars or pounds or chickens doesn’t really matter — the source of the wealth is the same.

            You’re right that most energy sources are ultimately solar (the electromagnetic force), except nuclear (the nuclear force), but gravitational sources represent another fundamental force (gravity), and tidal energy is not solar power.

  • Gerard McEk

    WoW! I do not think Rossi would apply, but maybe Holmlid, Brillouin?