Clean, Safe, Cheap Nuclear Update

That is great and exciting and I wish them good luck but

What about the heat and thermal pollution?

This is in fact a heat producing plant and if we go on a mass scale heat and thermal pollution will be a problem.

Hi:

Giving this credibility for the moment, #1, and just what form of energy do you think every single current power plant produces today??? Get real!!!!

.....Bill

PV power plants produce electricity. There are a number in service today.

The author writes: "It is really sad that the Department of Energy has been no help at all in any of these important developments."

Do we really want the DOE giving money out to industrialists based on claims of super secret catalysts? The DOE would very rapidly become a laughing stock if they started doing that.

The author also writes: "Perhaps the press blackout was a good thing because it kept the fossil fuel interests, who might have tried to kill the technology, in the dark."

The notion that one could so easily suppress information is rather strange. Furthermore, the "fossil fuel interests" really have little to fear from a 1 MW prototype that took years to build and is of dubious efficacy. Even if all of the hype is absolutely true the most this technology will provide is a source of base load electricity. Oil will still have a market for transportation fuel, natural gas will still have a market for home heating, peaking electricity generation, transportation fuels, industrial feedstocks, etc. Coal will still be used in all the extant coal power plants for decades.
Steven

@ Bill

I did not say that thermal and heat pollution at the moment is not a big but overlooked problem.

What I am trying to say is that any nuclear will give more of the same problem. While renewables like wind and PV do not create heat or thermal pollution because they use the energy of the Sun.

Dimitar writes in comments 1 and 5 of concerns about thermal pollution. It is worth remembering that the amount of heat generated by burning fossil fuels is utterly inconsequential compared to the amount received from solar insolation so, at least from a climate change perspective, it is simply not a concern. As long as you don't alter the atmospheric composition and thereby skew the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed you do not have to worry about affecting climate.

Of course, thermal pollution can be an environmental concern if, for instance, you dump waste heat into a river or lake, etc. because it can kill fish and cause other problems. Contrary to his claim, even solar PV results in some thermal pollution because having a black surface on your roof causes localized heating issues. These are very manageable problems though.
Steven

Hi:

Stephen you are a piece of work. You write:

"Furthermore, the "fossil fuel interests" really have little to fear from a 1 MW prototype that took years to build and is of dubious efficacy. Even if all of the hype is absolutely true the most this technology will provide is a source of base load electricity."

THE MOST THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL PROVIDE IS A SOURCE OF BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been around this site for a long time and have witnessed your posts for a substantial period. SO MANY times you complain about RE and its inability to satisfy base load and how intermittency is a big problem... blah..blah... and now given if the hype is true by your own words, you say just base load and poo poo this as an unimportant discovery that will have no substantial effect on oil!! Does the phrase "flip flop" in its political contest ring a bell for you...
Unlike the general public at large, RE people tend to have slightly longer memory that 6 months..... if you are going to pick a face to wear, at least stick with it rather than trying on a different one for each discussion...

.....Bill

Now William, do try to THINK rather than go all emotional. It is already over the top to speak of "fossil fuel interests" as if they were a monolithic entity. It is also fanciful to assume they would attempt to expunge one nascent technology from among the many that are springing up to compete with them when this would be nearly impossible, illegal, and unnecessary. Do you see coal interests trying to destroy the solar PV business? That sort of thing is the stuff of a bad science fiction movie rather than a modern business practice. Furthermore, only the coal business would have any major concern here because oil and natural gas are not used for base load power, so two of the three components of the fossil fuel industry need fear nothing from this device. The coal industry is already under assault from many fronts and there simply is no evidence that they have employed aggressive tactics to try to suppress any of the nascent competition. Clearly they are comfortable supplying a slowly diminishing market in western countries. I'm sure if you check the stock market today that coal suppliers have not had their share prices plummet based on the rumored appearance of a 1 MW prototype generator of stream--which could potentially produce about 0.3 MW of electricity if coupled to a turbine.

Of course, an affordable base-load source of non-CO2 generating electricity would be a very important breakthrough and nothing I have said could be construed (by a rational reader) as contradicting that reality. In the long term such a development would influence the energy markets, but the long term outlook for coal generation is already poor and businesses rarely make dramatic moves to head off a drop in market share that will occur decades into the future. Indeed, many rarely think more than a couple quarters ahead.
Steven

anon "Do we really want the DOE giving money out to industrialists based on claims of super secret catalysts? The DOE would very rapidly become a laughing stock if they started doing that."
They already somewhat of a laughing stock. A giant government bureaucracy subject to political pressures from all sorts of special interests who contribute heavily to political campaigns is bound to do a terrible job of picking winners.
With a fraction of the money that they now redistribute to well-connected interests, they could easily create X-prize type awards that are goal oriented and not technology specific. A clean, safe power plant with a certain cost/watt for example could be immediately rewarded with a large cash prize upon successful demonstration. This would unlock billions in private research money that would be intelligently allocated by smart investors who are now afraid of the long time horizon for actual profits from such a project.
As a liberal Democrat I am surprised to find myself agreeing with Ron Paul's proposal to shut down the DOE and many other agencies that simply channel money to their well-connected friends.

Hi:

If you call looking at YOUR comments and their directional consistency on par with a wind vane, the emotion would of course be laughter.
For a good breakdown and an interesting read on electric power generation in the USA, go to this link and download the .pdf at the near bottom.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh04000r.html
I am sure there are many others as well....

Electric vehicles will replace ICE cars and therefore huge amounts of oil. Providing the electricity from RE is key. A low cost rapidly scalable source of clean energy (No CO2 or radiation) as above would be a huge game changer and would alter our world and the key players within a decade once online....

Enough said...

.....Bill
.....EOL

Tom,
I think you overestimate the effectiveness of "X-prize type awards" in funding science. Most researchers need their funding up front so that they can pay for salaries and equipment, etc. If researchers had to front the money to keep their labs going and only got a payoff if they were the first group to achieve a specific target objective, groups would all work in secrecy. However, science progresses most rapidly when ideas are exchanged openly, with rapid presentation of findings in conferences followed by publication of full details in peer reviewed journals, and where an atmosphere of collaboration pervades. In such an environment mistakes are corrected quickly and good ideas and important findings are made available to all. The system you suggest would turn everyone into cutthroat competitors, duplication of effort would be common and the last thing one would want to do is point out a mistake so someone does not go down a blind alley. Furthermore, the notion that a bureaucracy could identify the best research directions to fund prizes for is highly dubious.
Steven

William writes in comment #10:
"Electric vehicles will replace ICE cars and therefore huge amounts of oil. Providing the electricity from RE is key"

Well, using electricity to power a vehicle is already much cheaper than using oil; making electricity still cheaper isn't going to be the thing that makes electric vehicles gain market share. Addressing vehicle cost and limited driving range (and other performance issues) might do that. The fossil fuel industry isn't going to be put out of business any time soon by electric vehicles.
Steven

Louk, louk, it makes lectricity with little bit of highly radioactive 'topes! Is goud, is goud!!

I am with William. This is ugly snot with a pretty dress.

Right now, I give this tech a 95% chance of being a scam. I love how some legal quibble over a patent matter is offered as "proof" that the tech is real.

Hey if it ends up being real nobody will be happier than me.

But, it is really hilarious given the likelihood that this is a fraud to see the usual naysayer crowd wasting their breath to poo-poo it.

anon " the notion that a bureaucracy could identify the best research directions to fund prizes for is highly dubious."
You are completely misunderstanding what I said. Prizes should not be for specific goals like "most efficient corn ethanol" They should be for general goals that are guaranteed not to be dead end, For example the $10 million Ansari X-prize for space travel was for bringing people into space twice in two weeks. No technology was specified, just the general goal. That challange resulted in 26 teams from 7 different nations spending $100 million to reach the goal using diverse creative ideas. Since spaceshipone won the prize $150 billion has been spent on the private space travel industry.
Lindburg's flight to Paris was to get a $25,000 prize. Nine teams spent $400,000 total trying for the prize. The $400 billion commercial aviation industry grew rapidly beginning in 1927.
Your notion that "science progresses most rapidly when ideas are exchanged openly, with rapid presentation of findings in conferences followed by publication of full details in peer reviewed journals" sounds nice in theory but does not agree with reality. The peer review process is controlled by people who have become rich with government subsidies. They use it to silence voices that may kill their golden goose. The discovery of cold fusion was sabotaged by physicists who saw it as a threat to their billion dollar Tokamak fusion projects. For 60 years we have wasted money on that misguided idea while people like Rossi had to work underground and create their own journals to discuss their work which was blackballed in the mainstream journals.
We could have had Rossi's breakthrough a decade earlier if the "big science" establishment hadn't sabotaged Pons and Fleischman's breakthrough.

A founder of the DoE's Tokamak program agrees with Tom about X-Prize incentives:

http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

If the legislation he sent to Congress had been adopted when first proposed, in 1992, the world would now be a very different place.

"We could have had Rossi's breakthrough a decade earlier if the "big science" establishment hadn't sabotaged Pons and Fleischman's breakthrough."
My sister worked with another scientist at U of Cal, and he wrote a thesuarus based on DNA research. The thesus showed how due to DNA specifics, while the DNA was very close to the great apes, the DNA showed that it was imposible for Man to be decendants of the great ape or any lineage of the ape. Even with this scientific proof, universities still teach the theories of Darwin. Any guesses why?

Darwin never suggested that man descended from apes. That's a popular strawman.

Really. Search that same webpage for 'ape' and you will find your own picture anonymous. I know DNA research is way below you but you are part of the idiotic flat Earth society so I understand your lack of intelligence. An officer no doubt ... Spend a few years investigating DNA theory then give us your expert pinion ... Oh ... can you read or does the fur get in your eyes?

"Darwin never suggested that man descended from apes. That's a popular strawman"

I've never heard that John, but I can not dispute the Darwins Theory they spoke of in high school physics. Do ya think that the American education system is capable of tuning facts for its own purposes? Ya think? I sure as Hell would not be surprised. So, exactly in your own words of wisdom John, what was Darwin trying to say?

Hi Tim,

The US public education system (like most other government run programs), is a dismal failure. Which is no doubt why so many are confused about Darwin's theory. What Darwin's theory suggests is that humans and apes have a common ancestor. Quite a different thing than suggesting humans descended from apes.

common ancestor
descended

Please explain this John ...

Posted on his blog:
Andrea Rossi
October 27th, 2011 at 9:03 AM
Dear RockEye:
Thank you: now it's 4 p.m. of the 27th, and we are finishing the cosmetics of the plant. I think tomorrow we will make, with the help of God, a good job. My work, basically, is finished. Within one hour the Consultants of the Customer will arrive to start the check of all the parts of the plant and prepare all their stuff for the test of tomorrow. Until some hour ago I felt a strong pressure, now, at the eve of the battle, as usual, I am recovering all my coldness and calm. We are ready.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

You are right Anon. I will stick to those knowledgeable people rather than an idiot who makes off the wall remarks on the internet then fails to back them up. I realize that the definitions of common ancestor and descendant are synonomous. I was just curious how educated you were. Now I know. I will continue listening to learned scientists. You ... should remain anonymous ... and go fishing. And don't worry about that mercury poisoning, I am sure the scientists are wrong.

Andrea Rossi
October 28th, 2011
FIRST INFORMATION REGARDING THE 1 MW PLANT TEST:
WE STARTED REGULARLY THE TEST THIS MORNING . EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL SO FAR. THE 1 MW E-CAT IS WORKING IN SELF SUSTAINING.
TONIGHT I WILL PUBLISH THE NON SECRET REPORT THAT THE CUSTOMER WILL RELEASE.
WARM REGARDS, I HAVE TO RETURN TO THE PLANT. SORRY, I CANNOT ANSWER TO THE MANY COMMENTS I AM RECEIVING. I WILL PUBLISH THEM PROBABLY I WILL NEVER FIND THE TIME TO ANSWER.
WARMEST REGARDS TO ALL,
ANDREA ROSSI
http://RossiColdFusion.com

"Give a link to the U of Cal's scientist's thesus (sic), for comparison "

I will email my sister to see what I can post Sunday. Give me a little time, sometimes my sister does not read her email for a couple days ... retired ya know ...

Well, this technology sounds good, but until the demonstrations are complete and patents are finished and it can be proven beyond doubt, the world will not get ahead of itself in rejoicing. I hope it is all that it claims, as it will be a welcome addition to our energy needs. Obviously the owners need to be careful not to lose their hard work to thieves and competitors. But really, the testing must get done first, then congratulations will follow.
It seems like a bad idea to refer to this system as "nuclear", if it does not produce radioactive wastes, or related dangers common to traditional nuclear power. By including it under the nuclear label, additional resistance will be shown to it by association. As far as it producing heat, the management of that heat is the difference between heat being a problem or not. Will it require large fresh water resources for cooling, like other thermal plants? If so then that is still an environmental concern. Not using radioactive fuel is a big advantage over nuclear power, and the lack of long term radioactive waste issues will make it a winner. I am anxious for the testing phase to be completed.

The public testing is over. The customer loaded the container on a truck and took it home. Rossi won the order. The customer was only interested in self-sustaining mode, which is why the power was only half what we expected. The 1 MW mode required a continuous electrical supply of 167 KW which limits its practical use to heating. Heating applications account for more than half of our fuel consumption so they are significant. Customer tests are all that matter. Cynical academics like maryyugo think that products undergo peer review. They don't.
Though Rossi will eventually develop a power generator, thermal generation is so inefficient that I think the future will be in clean Boron fusion like that being worked on by Lawrenceville.
Nuclear reactions don't have to be dirty. The world will soon learn that. Since the energy content of fuel with nuclear reactions is a million times greater, having a safe version will transform our economy and make coal and oil totally non-competitive just based on economics.

This is really neat stuff. I will have to begin research on this right away.

Early question. I see this device uses hydrogen. Any hydrogen production requires electricity to produce. Does anyone know what the energy ratio is, output vs input?

Tim Both the nickel and the hydrogen consumption are so low that insignificant amounts are used. Nuclear reactions use one millionth as much fuel as they are based on E=MC2

Pardon my ignorance, but is this fusion? Can you deduce where the energy comes from? I know there must be a million questions, and the builder seems to be saying he does not really understand it, just that it works. I have no problem with that, but curiosity has my interest peaked.
I had read an article in a science magazine where researchers claimed that Einstein's theory had been disproved. I did not follow up, so I know no more about that. Have you ever heard of that?
Energy = mass X speed of light squared
fusion causing free electrons to be released and generating heat in the process? Do you know, or can you offer an educated guess?

OK. So I'm not going to sleep for a few days ...