Posted on 29/03/2011 by Jaan Suurkula
New technologies are underway that have the potential to provide large amounts of energy, and are environmentally safe. They are expected to require less investment, and significantly lower energy costs than the current alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power (photovoltaics). They therefore appear to be potentially valuable alternatives to nuclear power.
Some promising clean and safe technologies
Blacklight Power (BLP)
It is based on the discovery of a previously unknown form of hydrogen known as Hydrinos (with lower energy content). When Hydrinos are formed by catalysis, intense heat develops and is used for generating electricity. The hydrinos were predicted by a new theory of physics, see “New physics for new energy“
The raw material is plain water. This technology is completely environmentally friendly and safe.
The construction costs of the power plants are expected to be about 75% less than nuclear power plants. The operating costs are likewise considerably lower than for nuclear power plants. (I myself have interviewed the company on the technology). A big advantage is that in addition to building new power plants, it would be easy to retrofit the Hydrino reactor into oil or coal-based power plants just by replacing the heat source without any other rebuilding required.
BLP has developed a new product, a fuel cell “CIHT” that can be used for for small scale electricity production as well, such as in individual villas or residential areas. Also it can be used for fuelling any transport vehicle, even aeroplanes. By combining a number of these reactors it is also possible to create large scale energy production units.
The energy costs for Blacklightpowers CIHT technology have been calculated to be 20 times lower than for solar (photovotaic) and 10 times lower than for wind power and three times as low than for nuclear power in Sweden (which, according to the national authority, Vattenfall, costs just over 3 cents):
The company says it will demonstrate a functional CIHT prototype within this year. Although this technology has a great potential value, its usefulness cannot be assessed until the prototype has been tested. However, the technology is basically simple, so there seems to be good reasons to be optimistic about its feasibility.
More on this in the blog: New energy source confirmed (to be translated from swedish)
The Rossi reactor
Like BlackLight Power it is based on a catalytic process in which hydrogen is involved. The technique has been developed at the prestigious University of Bologna in Italy by engineer Andrea A. Rossi and Prof. Sergio Focardi.
The energy outflow in industrial applications is estimated to be 8 times greater than the supply. No radioactivity and no environmentally harmful substances are produced. The cost is reported to be 1 to 1.5 cents per kWh, ie the same cost level as BlackLight Power. The technology has already been used for producing electricity at a plant since two years.
The inventor maintains they are prepared to start an 1 MW prototype in October 2011. The Rossi reactor has the potential to produce energy to such an extent that it can replace nuclear power. Rossi formerly called the process Cold Fusion, but now he calls it a kind of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). As a patent is not yet granted he has been secretive about the details. It cannot be ruled out that it is a kind of Hydrino generation procedure, considering that the energy is produced by a catalytic process using hydrogen similarly as BLP (the Hydrino generation process is the only scientifically verified method for extracting high amounts of energy from hydrogen catalysis).
Although this technology theortetically has a great potential value, one cannot judge it until the planned 1 MW demonstration plant in October 2011 has been started. More about this teknonlogi here: Rossi reactors .
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR)
It was formerly incorrectly called “cold fusion”, but recenlty researchers have realized it is not fusion and have begun developing technology to use it. Allan Widom of Northeastern University and Lewis Larsen have developed a theory how it works, see the slideshow . They have found out that the intense energy generated comes from nuclear reactions at the micro level where neutrons trigger emission of energy from atoms through nuclear transformations that end up in non-radioative elements.
Thermo-electric power generation
Zero-point-energy?
I have tried to get a grip on the issue of zero-point-energy generation. Some inventors argue that they have created machines that work, but they produce small amounts of energy.I’m still not entirely convinced about it. I have obtained new tips about the research in this field and will take a closer look at it. But it seems that this technology, if it does work, lies further ahead in time than the above ones when it comes to commercial applications.
Nuclear power can never be completely safe – anywhere
Although the number of serious accidents is small, the number of potentially serious incidents, is large, and there are reasons to suspect that perhaps even serious incidents, may have been covered up, not the least in Japan, see this video from CNN: “ Japan’s past nuclear coverups . “ Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden) has published a long list of incidents in the Swedish nuclear reactors.
It is not possible to assess the risks of this technology. Below is a statement by the internatioal Atomic Energy Commission (AEC):
“.. There Is Not Even in Principle an Objective and quantitative method of Calculating probability or improbability of Accidents or the likelihood That potential hazards goodwill or goodwill note asking Realized”
Source: “ Nuclear coverup: Censorship in the USA? “
Because of this undeniable unpredictability and the numerous documented incidents, it is dishonest by the nuclear power proponents to claim that it is possible to build “reasonably safe” nuclear power stations. The accident in Japan illustrates how dangerous this technology is.
Conclusion
Nuclear power is an unsafe, potentially very dangerous technology. Although it is over over 50 year old, it has not been possible to make it safe. It is not justifiable to commit to the construction of new nuclear plants, considering that potentially valubale, safe and powerful new technologies that don’t harm the environment are underway.
In stead of planning for more nuclear power, it would be wise to wait a year or two and see what the intense development of new and safe energy technolgies can bring about. Already a couple of interesting projects are due to present working prototypes this year.
Filed under: Energy Tagged: | alternative energy, inspiration, Japan, News, nuclear power, politics, technology
Thank you for this excellent post!
I believe the Rossi work is closer to practical commercialization than BlackLight Power, although their CIHT, should it prove practical, may ultimately be a terrific contribution to power production.
There are several other firms that have competitive technology and are keeping a low profile at present.
Zero Point Energy may be involved in all of these systems as well as in seemingly self-powered magnetic generators. The latter may prove practical surprisingly rapidly and are inherently low in cost.
Yes Mark, I agree with you at all points. I am quite concerned about the world oil situation. You may know that at least Saudi Arabia according to Wiki-leaks has cheated greatly about their oil reserves.
This was actually suspected by oil expert Colin J Campbell already a few years ago. He pointed out that OPEC countries have reasons to cheat so as to get larger oil export quotas and therefore he made own estimates that indicated that Peak Oil will occur in this decade.
The problem is that energy experts estimate that it might take 15-20 years to switch over to a completely new energy technology because new motors and energy generation systems need to be introduced all over the world. If oil shortage occurs in this decade, they have warned that, because of our great oil dependence, it will have catastrophic consequences, including collapse of goods transportation, collapse of industrial and agricultural production with severe mass famine and mass unemployment.
It is for this reason that I think BlackLightPower should be favored. It is especially valuable because of its simplicity and the possiblity to use it for transitional solutions like fitting it into combustion motors for generating hydrogen as fuel and retrofitting it into oil, coal heaters at all scales and for all purposes including heating and electricity production. Possibly it can be retrofitted into nuclear power plants as well.
Therefore it can solve both the heat production, transportation, agricultural production as well as industrial energy crisis because of its rapid applicability at all scales without the need for creating altogether new machines and electricity generating systems.
The Rossi reactor provides 10x the heat that BlackLight claims at present.
There are other systems that show great promise as well.
Joule Unlimited claims they can produce diesel at $30/barrel. See Moving Beyond Oil at http://www.aesopinstitute.org
BlackLight’s only hope IMHO is their CIHT and until they demonstrate it publicly even scientists friendly to BLP have doubts it can be commercialized.
First I want to express my great appreciation of your valuable website and the initiatives of Aesopinstitute.
Yes, Rossi may be a better alternative for large scale power production. I agree that the fuel cell CIHT-technology is their hope and would be of very great value to the world if it works. But as you say, we need to see a functioning prototype.
To financially support the development of CIHT, an implementation of their powerplant technology would be useful for them so I would not yet rule it out until a full scale prototype comparison has been done with Rossi. I really hope they can get one going – or have they already given up that part considering that they seem to be focusing on CIHT now?
I think cheap liquid fuel or “diesel” from algae can, because of the pollution and greenhouse gas problems, only be an intermediary solution.
Thanks.
Note that Moving Beyond Oil, updated a few minutes ago, does go into water as fuel. There are alternatives to the approach used by BLP. They seem more practical at present.
All of the promising technologies ought to have sufficient support for 24/7 validation, development and production.
The market would then eventually sort them out.
And fossil fuels as well as Uranium can be left behind faster than might be imagined.