Revolution or Evolution?

As we all await the widespread distribution of new energy technologies, we can’t help but wonder if the fossil fuel industry will be as disrupted as we think. The idea of affordable alternative energy on a massive scale – a scale big enough to replace coal-fueled power plants and provide energy for manufacturing plants – the place of fossil fuels will surely be shaken.

One of the comments made on Andrea Rossi’s website, the Journal of Nuclear Physics, asked Mr. Rossi if he had made any kinds of plans or engaged in any talks with governments to “minimize the turmoil (and potential collapse) in the energy/financial markets”.

Mr. Rossi’s response was “no”. This is understandable. He is not an ambassador or diplomat, but an inventor. And, as he has repeatedly pointed out in his blogs, he and his team are working very hard both in the manufacture of the first commercial Hot Cat for a paying customer, and in development of new technologies, before the “old” ones are even dusty.

As far as investments go, Mr. Rossi suggested that the individual investor should:

“…be very cautious until many plants will be in operation.”

This is a curious comment. One would think that Mr. Rossi would encourage investors, but he has never made this a priority in his work.  Perhaps the new U.S. partner is providing adequate funding, and is keeping the investment opportunities private at this time. Mr. Rossi has said all along that once the Hot Cat and E-Cat are proven on the market,  consumer demand will create the demand.

He then makes a very insightful comment:

“…it will not be a revolution, but an evolution through series of integrations.”

An energy revolution would involve crashing stock markets, massive layoffs, and political power plays on a global game-board. An evolution would occur slowly and steadily, giving people, economies, industries, and politics to adapt gradually. Let’s hope that Mr. Rossi is right, and the world will be able to evolve into this superior technology. As consumers realize the benefits, and as demand increases, let’s also hope that self-serving governments or powerful industries do not succeed in blocking use of the Hot Cat.

 

6 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. you’re welcome. :)

  2. LENR have characteristics of bein in a way technologically quite conservative… you can retrofit existing technologies, existing standards.
    It can replace coal, it can replace nuke, it can replace gas furnace, electric boilers, without NEEDING to change the current organisation.

    However it reduce many disadvantage, and allow many more design choice. It is like a nuke, that you put at home, like a furnace but with 5 year autonomy.
    In that perspective LENR is very disruptive noit because it impose constraint, , but because it free from many contraint that some actors use to protect their economic rent.

    In a way it looks like Internet…. allowing old business to reduce cost, but quickly allowing new business to work differently and save even more effort.

    I would advice you to read, the book , and two paper from jed rothwell that explain how disruptive and conservative innovation make things change

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?179-Jed-Rothwells-book-Cold-Fusion-and-the-Future

    read alo the “creative destruction” concept, which is absolutely normal… of course there will be losers, but also winers…

    f

  3. ‘ As consumers realize the benefits, and as demand increases, let’s also hope that self-serving governments or powerful industries succeed in blocking use of the Hot Cat.’
    Admin
    I believe you have a major league typo in this sentence! i believe you hope that the self-serving govts do – not- succeed in blocking the use of the hot cat.

    • No, I think the article is trying to say that a slow changeover rather than sudden revolution would be better for the economy as a whole. So the resistance from certain special interests will actually not be a bad thing.

      I tend to agree, change is inevitable but so is resistance to change. Human nature being what it is.

      • Slow change has better chances of becoming an actual part of the average human life, but that was an editing error.

        However, your point of view on human resistance to change is also true.

    • Yes, sorry about that. It was an editing error. Thank you for the heads up!

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Your name is required

Please enter a valid email address

An email address is required

Please enter your message

© 2014 All Rights Reserved