RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Mark, I agree the phenomena doesn't "NEED" to be nuclear in a Lyne - Moller - Zero Point fashion but the reports of transmutation suggests this anomaly can lead to nuclear reactions if not carefully controlled. I predict this "capability" will be exaggerated by big business to force stringent certification standards and possibly national security objections to keep it out of the residential marketplace. My posit is they will steer this into a replacement for centralized nuclear plants making it easy to utilize their current metering systems to bill the end user. Fran From: Mark Goldes [mailto:overton...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE This assumes Rossi has a nuclear reaction. There is reason to believe he might not. Should that be proven, there may be little danger or delay. From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE Robert Leguillon mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com>> wrote: If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be banned from personal use. They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been performed with rats and other species. I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure wouldn't want one! If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be banned for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from rival energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a few years, consumers will demand the laws be changed. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > And by the way, it's expensive. >> > > It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of > people. > What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors? Or do you think animals are used to verify that conventional nuclear power plants are safe? Maybe they use canaries? > >> If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be >> from some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown . . . >> > > There are many potential risks. They must all be addressed. This is not > 1812 or 1912. We do not allow new, unknown, unproven technology to be > widely used without first subjecting it to extensive testing. That is not > how the world works anymore. There are advantages and disadvantages to our > modern way of doing things, but you cannot turn back the clock. It is > wishful thinking to suppose that cold fusion can be deployed without > extensive testing, or that these machines will ever be made by pioneering > people on their own, "unshackled from centralized governance." That is like > thinking people will make their own NiCad batteries or cell phones. Cold > fusion reactors are high-tech devices. They are extremely difficult to > replicate and they always will be. They require precision manufacturing and > computerized control systems. > So you don't think Rossi will sell a million E-cats this year through Home Depot? That puts you at odds with lots of believers, LOL!
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Exactly. The engineering/science delay in getting this to market will be dwarfed by the NRC regulatory delays, and if there are (any) neutrons released, it will never be a mass market product, confined to govt regulated utilities and similar large industrial uses. - Original Message - From: Robert Leguillon To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:03 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be banned from personal use. We cannot legally build a homemade fission reactor (even removing Americium from smoke detectors is regulated by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Likewise, activities involving neutron emission from a metal lattice could be banned in kind. Sure, it wouldn't serve to stop some "backyard fusioneers" from home development, but it could preclude mainstream distribution. Whether you call it health-and-welfare or you raise the curtain of "national security", it would be easy to assign it to a regulatory body. Public utilities would then be the only candidates for proper licensing, and could retrofit existing plants with LENR technology. They would quickly be mandated to make the changeover, for the environment's sake (just like banning incandescent bulbs and switching to CFLs). As the changeover occurs, they could even ask for an INCREASE in utility rates to absorb equipment costs. After the public utilities are providing nearly 100% of domestic electricity, hybrid/electric cars may be the next mandate by the green lobby. As any competing energy sources fall like dominoes, the sole energy source remaining will be government-electricity. Though viable LENR could be used to free and unshackle, it could also be used as a method to unify human needs into further reliance on a centralized governance. -- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:05:25 -0500 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dave, You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the new business model into place. Even military applications will displace existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill run for us to finally become free of the energy producers. Anything that does not generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get past the regulations. Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering. We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from competitive sources. I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money and not be persuaded by the "power company". Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me to choose when and by whom It is charged. Forget the radio link back to home base as that is too expensive and intrusive. How difficult would it be to have an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance? I can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider recharging. Am I alone in wanting to have true independence? Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE E-L, I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden opportunity to rapidly escape povert
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Mary Yugo wrote: > They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been >> performed with rats and other species. >> > > What are you describing here? There is no need for animal experiments > unless some sort of radiation is discovered to be emanating from the > reactions. > Mild radiation has been measured from many cold fusion reactors. Radioactive products such as tritium have been measured. This reactor produced a large burst of radiation measured by Celani in January. It was enough to saturate both of his instruments. If it had continued for a few seconds they would all have been killed. In any case, there is always a need for animal experiments with new technology. Even things like cell phones held close to the ear may cause health problems, so they should be tested extensively. This adds little to the cost of the machine. This is the 21st Century. We have high standards for safety, as we should. We can afford testing, and we should do it. Until the nature of cold fusion is well understand, and a robust theory is developed, such that we know exactly what kind of radiation and transmutations it produces in different circumstances, I think it would be wise to restrict the use of it. And even then, the effects can be predicted from what is already known > about radiation exposure. > The radiation effects have to be measured first, in thousands of hours of rigorous testing. Assuming there is any radiation. > The purported devices don't leak nickel or nickel and copper compounds. > What's the concern if they make, as advertised, no external radiation? > The concern is that the advertisements are wrong. Regulators and insurance companies never trust a corporation's advertisement about matters relating to safety. That would be crazy. How would animal testing be of any value? > You have to do the testing to find out whether it is of value or not. You cannot know a priori. Biology is much too complicated. > And by the way, it's expensive. > It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of people. > If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be from > some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown . . . > There are many potential risks. They must all be addressed. This is not 1812 or 1912. We do not allow new, unknown, unproven technology to be widely used without first subjecting it to extensive testing. That is not how the world works anymore. There are advantages and disadvantages to our modern way of doing things, but you cannot turn back the clock. It is wishful thinking to suppose that cold fusion can be deployed without extensive testing, or that these machines will ever be made by pioneering people on their own, "unshackled from centralized governance." That is like thinking people will make their own NiCad batteries or cell phones. Cold fusion reactors are high-tech devices. They are extremely difficult to replicate and they always will be. They require precision manufacturing and computerized control systems. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
This assumes Rossi has a nuclear reaction. There is reason to believe he might not. Should that be proven, there may be little danger or delay. From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE Robert Leguillon wrote: If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be banned from personal use. They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been performed with rats and other species. I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure wouldn't want one! If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be banned for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from rival energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a few years, consumers will demand the laws be changed. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Leguillon wrote: > > If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could >> easily be banned from personal use. >> > > They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been > performed with rats and other species. > What are you describing here? There is no need for animal experiments unless some sort of radiation is discovered to be emanating from the reactions. And even then, the effects can be predicted from what is already known about radiation exposure. The purported devices don't leak nickel or nickel and copper compounds. What's the concern if they make, as advertised, no external radiation? How would animal testing be of any value? And by the way, it's expensive. If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be from some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown, steam explosions and the like, spreading the core materials and shrapnel from the metal housing out with force. That, I'd worry a lot about from the looks of the crude devices Rossi has thus far produced.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
This assumes Rossi has a nuclear reaction. There is reason to believe he might not. Should that be proven, there may be little danger or delay. From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE Robert Leguillon wrote: If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be banned from personal use. They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been performed with rats and other species. I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure wouldn't want one! If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be banned for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from rival energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a few years, consumers will demand the laws be changed. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Robert Leguillon wrote: If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could > easily be banned from personal use. > They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been performed with rats and other species. I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure wouldn't want one! If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be banned for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from rival energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a few years, consumers will demand the laws be changed. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be banned from personal use. We cannot legally build a homemade fission reactor (even removing Americium from smoke detectors is regulated by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Likewise, activities involving neutron emission from a metal lattice could be banned in kind. Sure, it wouldn't serve to stop some "backyard fusioneers" from home development, but it could preclude mainstream distribution. Whether you call it health-and-welfare or you raise the curtain of "national security", it would be easy to assign it to a regulatory body. Public utilities would then be the only candidates for proper licensing, and could retrofit existing plants with LENR technology. They would quickly be mandated to make the changeover, for the environment's sake (just like banning incandescent bulbs and switching to CFLs). As the changeover occurs, they could even ask for an INCREASE in utility rates to absorb equipment costs. After the public utilities are providing nearly 100% of domestic electricity, hybrid/electric cars may be the next mandate by the green lobby. As any competing energy sources fall like dominoes, the sole energy source remaining will be government-electricity. Though viable LENR could be used to free and unshackle, it could also be used as a method to unify human needs into further reliance on a centralized governance. Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:05:25 -0500 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dave, You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the new business model into place. Even military applications will displace existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill run for us to finally become free of the energy producers. Anything that does not generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get past the regulations. Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering. We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from competitive sources. I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money and not be persuaded by the "power company". Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me to choose when and by whom It is charged. Forget the radio link back to home base as that is too expensive and intrusive. How difficult would it be to have an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance? I can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider recharging. Am I alone in wanting to have true independence? Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE E-L, I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to “join” rather than “beat” LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter this new resource. Fran From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE OK, I thought h
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
David Roberson wrote: They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill > run for us to finally become free of the energy producers. > I do not think this will be a problem. There is a significant amount of unmetered energy already. Many people in the U.S. heat their houses with firewood. In Japan and elsewhere they use solar water heaters, solar electricity, and in the countryside they use firewood. The only problem with metering will be highway taxes which are presently paid with a gasoline tax. You need to replace that with a tax on miles driven, with an annual odometer reading. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate business many fossil > fuel industries ought to seriously consider would be to "retool" > into something equivalent to an eCat (or whatever "eCats" evolve > into) service provider. It would be no different than having a furnace and > central A/C installed in one's home. There are already many HVAC service companies. Oil companies cannot compete with them. They do not know anything about that business. They have no relevant expertise. Also, the total size of the HVAC market is a small fraction of the market for oil. An oil company going into mainly into this business would have to shrink profits, the number of employees, the stock value, and so on. In a few years it would be a shadow of what it was. > After one of these energy units was installed, I'd want a 24 hour > guaranteed service protection plan in place to make sure someone would be > out to my home in less than an hour to fix any anomalies. I am sure any company such as this one would be happy to sell you a service contract like that: http://www.serviceexperts.com/ They already offer this kind of protection plan for conventional equipment. Cold fusion powered equipment will not be allowed until it can meet safety regulations, serviceability, and other standards. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Dave, You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the new business model into place. Even military applications will displace existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill run for us to finally become free of the energy producers. Anything that does not generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get past the regulations. Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering. We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from competitive sources. I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money and not be persuaded by the "power company". Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me to choose when and by whom It is charged. Forget the radio link back to home base as that is too expensive and intrusive. How difficult would it be to have an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance? I can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider recharging. Am I alone in wanting to have true independence? Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE E-L, I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to “join” rather than “beat” LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter this new resource. Fran From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com<mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com?>] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get certification for Europe and the rest of the World. On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit. I suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012, will not be anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain mode or very close to it. I estimated the control electronics and the primary circuit circulating pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts electrical input, the COP is 50. AG On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote: Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional boiler running cost. On 04/01/ 12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns. https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement ink business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is j
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill run for us to finally become free of the energy producers. Anything that does not generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get past the regulations. Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering. We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from competitive sources. I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money and not be persuaded by the "power company". Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me to choose when and by whom It is charged. Forget the radio link back to home base as that is too expensive and intrusive. How difficult would it be to have an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance? I can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider recharging. Am I alone in wanting to have true independence? Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE E-L, I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to “join” rather than “beat” LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter this new resource. Fran From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get certification for Europe and the rest of the World. On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit. I suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012, will not be anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain mode or very close to it. I estimated the control electronics and the primary circuit circulating pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts electrical input, the COP is 50. AG On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote: Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional boiler running cost. On 04/01/ 12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns. https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement ink business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is just about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for anybody on this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal energy being so low cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination of sea / brackish water should be low cost as well. Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the whole planet.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
>From Francis >Big oil has no way to plug all these > little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to > “join” rather than “beat” LENR and will probably find some way to purchase > and meter this new resource. It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate business many fossil fuel industries ought to seriously consider would be to "retool" into something equivalent to an eCat (or whatever "eCats" evolve into) service provider. It would be no different than having a furnace and central A/C installed in one's home. After one of these energy units was installed, I'd want a 24 hour guaranteed service protection plan in place to make sure someone would be out to my home in less than an hour to fix any anomalies. If they can't fix it, replace it. No questions asked. All part of the plan. The plan would also include routine maintenance and the replacement of parts and spent reactor cores. I'd seriously consider paying 20 - 40 bucks a month for peace of mind, especially if that becomes my combined monthly heating & electric bill. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
E-L, I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden opportunity to rapidly escape poverty - I can see these nations trying to rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to "join" rather than "beat" LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter this new resource. Fran From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get certification for Europe and the rest of the World. On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit. I suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012, will not be anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain mode or very close to it. I estimated the control electronics and the primary circuit circulating pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts electrical input, the COP is 50. AG On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote: Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional boiler running cost. On 04/01/12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns. https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement ink business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is just about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for anybody on this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal energy being so low cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination of sea / brackish water should be low cost as well. Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the whole planet.
