On the Precipice Of a New Energy Source?

Guest Editorial • On the Precipice Of a New Energy Source? Steve Jacobs, COO, and Patrick Leach, CEO, Decision Strategies, and David J. Nagel, CEO, NUCAT Energy

Steve Jacobs is chief operating officer of Decision Strategies and has more than 30 years of experience in the oil and gas industry. His specialty is evaluating market opportunities for new and existing technologies and companies. He earned BS degrees in psychology and education from Oklahoma State University. Jacobs is an energy information ambassador for SPE. He moderates and lectures at numerous events around the world.

Patrick Leach is chief executive officer of Decision Strategies. He is a recognized expert in risk management and decision making in the face of uncertainty, and has published and presented numerous papers on these subjects. He is the author of Why Can't You Just Give Me the Number, an executive's guide to using probabilistic thinking to manage risk and make better decisions. Leach earned a BS degree in geomechanics from the University of Rochester and an MBA degree from the University of Houston.

David J. Nagel is chief executive officer of NUCAT Energy.Previously, he was a member of the senior executive service and leader of the physics division at the US Naval Research Laboratory, where he managed experimental and theoretical research and development efforts. He has also been a research professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at George Washington University with a focus on low energy nuclear reactions. He received a BS degree in engineering science, an MS degree in physics, and a PhD in materials engineering.

In the late 1850s, the whaling industry was in a veritable boom in the town of Lahaina on the Hawaiian island of Maui. Business was great, and many in the whaling industry believed that increased demand would continue for decades to come. But in 1859, oil was discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania with a well drilled by Edwin Drake. The rest is history.

That was 150 years ago. A small but increasing number of people around the world believe we are on a similar course, except this time it is the petroleum industry that might be threatened. As with any emerging technology, critical challenges must be overcome and a significant effort lies ahead to convince a world of skeptics that a new source of energy has been discovered and will be important.

The potential new source of energy is low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). With any discussion of a new technology, caution is advised. The world of LENR is filled with mystery, contradiction, gross speculation, misinformation, slippery timelines, and skepticism that sometimes spill over into outright denial. Healthy skepticism on LENR (or any new technology) is a good thing, but so is an open mind. If LENR is for real—and many well-qualified physicists believe it is—it will not only change the petroleum industry, but also significantly affect almost every aspect of our world. Some call it "the new fire."

In 1989 at the University of Utah, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced they had discovered a cold fusion process that would ultimately result in cheap, limitless energy. The outcome from these cold fusion efforts became widely known and well documented, primarily because other researchers were unable to replicate the results from the initial experiments. Cold fusion was (and is) viewed as impossible by many in the scientific community. Although the research did not cease, it was largely ignored.For the past 20-plus years, a small number of scientists have been diligently working on what could eventually become a hugely disruptive technology.

According to New Energy Times, "LENRs are weak interactions and neutroncapture processes that occur in nanometer-to-micron-scale regions on surfaces in condensed matter at room temperature. Although nuclear, LENRs are not based on fission or any kind of fusion, both of which primarily involve the strong interaction. LENRs produce energetic nuclear reactions and elemental transmutations, but do so without strong prompt radiation or long-lived radioactive waste." ("Strong interaction" and "weak interaction" refer to the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, which-along with electromagnetic force and gravity-make up the four basic forces in nature.)

There are several versions of LENR being developed using different reactants and processes. The basic process of LENR is not well understood, but some experts have stated that it works as follows: Nano-sized particles of nickel, pressurized hydrogen, and a catalyst are heated in a small reactor to the point at which weak interactions between the reactants cause transmutation (i.e., some of the nickel is converted to copper). Considerable excess heat is emitted during this process. Once the reaction becomes self-sustaining, the input power can be reduced significantly and excess heat (up to 650°C) is generated in the range of five to 30 times the input energy. This can be used to create steam, which can then be used for heating and/or generating electricity. The reactants are inexpensive and ubiquitous; during operation, the system emits no greenhouse gases; when turned off, there is no radioactivity; and the unit will allegedly generate electricity for a few cents per kilowatt hour. Now that is a disruptive technology.

According to one researcher, the amount of energy released from 1 gram of nickel would be equivalent to about one barrel of oil. Heat (in the form of steam) and electricity will be the main products. In addition to residential usage, plans exist for commercial and industrial heating/electrical systems. An attractive application is the production of clean water, including desalination systems. Eventually, LENR technology could be used in transportation (e.g., vehicles, aircraft, and ships).

No doubt the skeptics—and even some of the open-minded—reading this article are now cringing. But current LENR efforts are not dependent upon the outcome of just one development effort; there are a number of LENR programs under way in Europe and the United States. Universities and government agencies involved include Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NASA, and the University of Illinois, and several private companies in Greece, Italy, and the US are also developing LENR technologies. Positive results and improved performance have been reported by the research teams, with at least four companies stating that they are in the early stages of commercial development. A small number of LENR unit manufacturing plants are reportedly being built in Europe and the US, and at least two companies have said they will begin marketing their systems later this year. If this is a hoax, it is a remarkably widespread one, involving organizations of high integrity with no obvious motivation to fool the public and quite a lot to lose in terms of reputation.

But even if a hoax is ruled out, other challenges exist, including accepted scientific explanations of LENR, better refinement of control systems, reliable operations, and a distribution/service infrastructure to maintain LENR units that would presumably be located in every business and neighborhood. There is also the nontrivial issue of full-cycle net energy gain (the LENR process may be energy positive once running, but hydrogen is a key ingredient in LENR; there are no earthly sources of free hydrogen, and it takes energy to separate it from the oxygen atom in water). There will also be regulatory issues and intellectual property challenges that may slow the pace of market penetration in the coming years.However, if this technology is for real, the value proposition for LENR will be incredible.

The best known LENR effort currently under way is by Italian Andrea Rossi and his energy catalyzer. He has developed a LENR system that reportedly is ready for commercialization. Although Rossi has had to change a number of delivery dates for his "E-Cat," he appears to be making progress. He stated in mid-April: "We have already made all the engineering of the production line in the two factories we will set up (one in the US, one in Europe) … I think that it will take from 6 to 12 months after the certifications will be done to start the production."

If proven to work, what impact would LENR have on the petroleum industry? It is difficult to say for certain, but it would undoubtedly be significant. The vast preponderance of oil is used for transportation and heating (Fig. 1), which would now be competing with LENR. While there still would be a need for petrochemicals and other applications, collectively these end uses represent less than about 20% of each barrel. Natural gas would not fare much better; its main applications are heating and electricity. If LENR works, the impact on the petroleum industry, power generation, and coal industry would be enormous. Even wind farms and other emerging alternative energy technologies could not compete economically with LENR.

So what can be done to prepare for LENR? First, watch it closely and do not let skepticism blind you. When the Wright Brothers flew their first plane at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the scientific community reportedly argued for years after the fact over whether a heavier-than-air craft could actually fly. Even the most obvious evidence was not enough to make some people abandon their preconceived notions of what was possible. Drake had to battle similar skepticism when he drilled the first oil well; many people in Pennsylvania called it "Drake's Folly."

It is also important to evaluate the specific impact that LENR would have on an individual company. How well positioned is your company to weather such a disruptive storm, or to capitalize on these potential opportunities? If LENR becomes a reality, you do not want to fly blindly into the side of a mountain. Investigate creative ways for your company to participate in the LENR market.While this new technology will be disruptive to a number of industries, there will also be business opportunities in the manufacturing, installation, and servicing of LENR systems in multiple applications and sizes around the globe. Millions of LENR units of varying sizes will be required because of the distributed nature of this energy technology.

There is a probability that LENR may never emerge as a reliable, new energy source. If not LENR, then what? Eventually, some other technology is bound to come along with a much superior value proposition than hydrocarbons.It is not a matter of if, but when, this will happen. There was nothing the whaling industry could do to halt its pending decline, and the same will be true when a new technology makes our current approaches to energy generation obsolete. It is vital for a company to have a strategy development process that recognizes and characterizes uncertainty, and deals with complexity appropriately, including potential game changers such as LENR. Such an approach places companies in a stronger position to mitigate risk and capture opportunities as our complex, unpredictable, and surprising future unfolds.

Feel free to peruse that year-old thread which rehashes all this stuff, that thread I posted to you earlier.

Do your homework.

It’s obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. Otherwise you would not be asking such questions.

How is it that you formed such Anti-LENR opinions without knowing the facts on the ground?

Feel free to peruse that year-old thread which rehashes all this stuff, that thread I posted to you earlier.

Yes, Johnny B. gave the most likely mechanism.

It’s obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. Otherwise you would not be asking such questions.

I'm asking the question so I could demonstrate how it could very easily be a chemical reaction.

About a thousand times more than any known chemical reaction could account for.

Hilarious! Do your homework.

You’re hiding, no doubt because you don’t want to do the footwork yourself.

How many ElectronVolts are generated in a typical LENR experiment where excess heat has been observed? How many EVs are possible with chemical means?

Speculate all you want, but it would take thousands of gallons of whatever chemical you postulate to account for the excess heat observed, perhaps hundreds of thousands. You’d need a water tank 20 times the size of the shipping container that the demo was performed in.

Hilarious! HAHAHAHAHA! You OBVIOUSLY haven’t done your Freeping homework, and are JUST NOW realizing it! How Freeping stupid does that make YOU LOOK???? What a FREEPING LOON!!!!!

You’d need a water tank 20 times the size of the shipping container that the demo was performed in.
***In addition, whatever that supposed chemical was, you’d be able to smell it. The drainage was in the open air, so it would suffocate everyone nearby, with that large of an effluence.

I had given you the benefit of the doubt, that you’d done the homework. I see that you did not warrant such an assumption. Do your **REALIZE** how STUPID this makes you look? Should I remove such an assumption for ALL the anti-LENR crowd? Perhaps they’re all just too LAZY to do the homework? From my interactions with that crowd, that seems like a very likely and warranted assumption at this point. WOW! Really... WOW! How incredibly stupid that is... I had no idea that I was dealing with such lazy and stupid people. WOW.

How many ElectronVolts are generated in a typical LENR experiment where excess heat has been observed?

I'm pretty sure Rossi has generated zero EV with LENR.

You’d need a water tank 20 times the size of the shipping container that the demo was performed in.

Tell me how much "excess energy" was generated and I'll tell you how much H2O2 was needed.

In addition, whatever that supposed chemical was, you’d be able to smell it. The drainage was in the open air, so it would suffocate everyone nearby, with that large of an effluence.

All that extra oxygen. Awful!

Perhaps they’re all just too LAZY to do the homework?

Perhaps you shouldn't mention homework?

"My simple calculations show that's not the case."

Your "simple calculations" aren't worth the electrons it took to generate them. In a word, they are "simplistic", as are your assumptions. There have been several demonstrations, all well documented, and run at different power levels. Your calculations may well be true for one case, but the assumed "fake" has to explain ALL the different runs. In particular, the overnight run done by Rossi and Levi, would require a far higher energy component and makes the introduction of such a component virtually impossible. The coolant water in that case was taken directly from the buildings water mains, run through a totalizing flowmeter, and into and through the E-cat.

Since you appear to be pretty ignorant of chemistry, you don't realize that Rossi would have had to come up with MULTIPLE DIFFERENT fakes to explain the data from all the runs. This is probably a harder task than getting the E-Cat to actually produce power from fusion.

But keep trying.....eventually you will actually learn something.

Your "simple calculations" aren't worth the electrons it took to generate them. In a word, they are "simplistic", as are your assumptions.

Simplistic? More simplistic than the claim that "The data on this phenomenon is very consistent — the heat generated is several orders of magnitude more than could be possible with any known chemical reaction"?

There have been several demonstrations, all well documented, and run at different power levels.

In case you forgot, I asked you "how much "excess" energy did he produce? He warmed how much water how many degrees?" You could provide the data for another test. Or you could run away again.

In particular, the overnight run done by Rossi and Levi, would require a far higher energy component and makes the introduction of such a component virtually impossible.

Component? You mean the hose pumping the H2O2? Or would he have to up the concentration to the 3% level? Yeah, that would be impossible to pull off.

Since you appear to be pretty ignorant of chemistry

I know, I mean just look at my enthalpy calculations. Just horrible.

But keep trying.....eventually you will actually learn something.

Chemicals with the energy density you're talking about are damned dangerous. Even peroxide, at the strength needed, is liable to "undergo dangerous transitions". We're not talking about the stuff in your medicine cabinet, which is diluted, but at a concentration well above 90%.

Hilarious!

Kevmo: How many ElectronVolts are generated in a typical LENR experiment where excess heat has been observed?
Toddiot: I’m pretty sure Rossi has generated zero EV with LENR.
***You keep going back to Rossi, whereas almost all of the 14,700 replications occurred BEFORE Rossi even came on the scene. I’m fine with throwing Rossi out, consider his stuff nontypical, and answer the question.

But you won’t answer the question. More hemming, hawwing, and bowlsheet is what we can expect from you.

Tell me how much “excess energy” was generated and I’ll tell you how much H2O2 was needed.
***You already did the enthalpy stuff, so why are you asking again? You blithely ignore that the input water was TESTED. It did not have H202 in it, it was simply water. So how is it you can produce that kind of excess heat with just water? You won’t answer this question, because the answer proves my point that the available energy from water alone is nowhere near enough to produce the excess heat observed. By orders of Magnitude. You know it, that’s why you keep avoiding it.

You already did the enthalpy stuff, so why are you asking again?

Because disproving your claim, "orders of magnitude more" was so easy.

You blithely ignore that the input water was TESTED.

Maybe you can show me where it was tested?

So how is it you can produce that kind of excess heat with just water?

Of course, if it was an honest test, you probably couldn't produce excess heat with just water. But that wasn't your claim. I'll try to help you remember.

Kevmo: Look at this, excess energy!

Seagull: Yeah, great, but Rossi is untrustworthy.

Kevmo:Doesn't matter, excess energy!

Seagull: He could've faked it.

Kevmo: Impossible, no fake would work, orders of magnitude more energy are produced than any possible chemical reaction. Not even rocket fuel has enough energy. This proves it couldn't be a fake!

Seagull: It could be a chemical reaction.

Kevmo: A new chemical reaction would be great, no NRC involvement.

Seagull: H2O2 decomposing isn't a new reaction. Not even when it's 0.196M.

Kevmo: No fair. When I said no possible chemical reaction, I didn't think anyone would actually prove me wrong with some simple high school chemistry.

LOL!

You should try to dilute your 3% H2O2 down to 0.196 M, (I'll help you, that would be less than 7 grams per 1000 mL of solution) and test the smell.

There was some discussion on this at Vortex. Here’s a sample

On 11-06-21 06:12 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

hello,

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, is a substance that can be dissolved in water
with any concentration. It can easily be catalyzed to decompose into
water, oxygen and 0,196 MJ of heat per mol. ....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a good reminder how easy it is to fake up such a short black
box demonstrations. Really all you need is some cleverly hidden power
source. That H2O2 is good example of variety of possible methods how
to fake this thing, if that is the purpose. Right now, there is only
word from about a dozen people, who has the first hand knowledge. But
it is just a word. Although I think that faking a word is far more
difficult than faking a demonstration.

This is very much of the reason why I am very much of disappointed on
this steam issue discussion, because it fails to see the point of
demonstrations. People seem to fail completely to realize, that there
are far more easy ways to fake up demonstrations. And there are dozens
of them! This steam faking is not among them, because as it is clearly
shown by rossi and levi, criticism just fails in the very basics. Like
everyone can see when they are boiling water in the kettle.

Jouni: Horse pucky. There is nothing at all which was “clearly shown” about the steam in the experiments done by Rossi, Levi, and Galantini.
And as discussed at length on this list, if the big Cat was actually putting out 15 kW of power, it would have been very difficult to fake it. There are certainly not “dozens” of “easy” ways to fake it. You don’t get that kind of energy by simple stuff like pre-warming the boiler, or stuffing it with gasoline and platinum! A fake is only plausible if the *actual* excess power was much smaller than what was claimed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.