Yes, Hyperion-style reactors, according to the numbers they publish, cause a strong paradigm change in energy strategy, while being very conservative on technology.
The current paradigm is expensive fuel, that you have to save, with costly optimized devices, to increase energetic efficiency, so you save even more costly fuel on the long term. The new paradigm is inexpensive fuel, with cheap , simple, but comparatively expensive device and maintenance. The fuel raw material is nearly free per kWh produced, and even the work on the fuel seems cheap. The reactor is a little more expensive than the usual furnance, yet cheaper than an Heat Pump. However is changing totally the investment strategy, LENR is very conservative and simple to integrate in existing technology. It replace any reactor, furnace, boiler. no need of cold-side convector outside, of panel, or tower, of building, of shielding... at most add a fire alarm and some slow venting to evacuate hydrogen leaks... then use the classic radiators to heat, turbine to produce electricty or mechanical energy, absorption refrigerator for cold... anothe big change will be the autonomy, because the fuel is very light, yet the reactor is heavy. It will give vehicle with huge autonomy, like nuclear boats/submarines. the only problem is about throtling which is slower than gaz furnace, but with good classic plumbing (heat accumulation), or hybrid-electric drive (like on cars), you can manage. initially I thought that CHP would be a good idea with smart grid, but I don't think so now. Investment is the only real cost, and it is more rational to have a dumb 10kW furnace at home, and a big MW power plant in the block, than have a complex CHP connected to the grid anyway. At most CHP will replace diesel in remote islands. And power plants will replace long electric lines, because it will be more easy to produce electricity on-demand than to transport it far. about economic factor, it will give work to many people, in rich and poor countries, because there will be too much job for everybody, because the ROI is huge. I can be good fro developing countries, if they can obtain the loan to replace their yearly costly oil by a big investment, paid back in a few years. At worst they could ask the market or make a central bank, because that investment payback quickly. Socially and geostrategically it will stabilize the world. by the way I noticed that DGT talk of emerging competitors in japan ? Who is it ? Mitsubishi or Toyota ? someone else? ps: hope they are sincere, but I don't see any other credible alternative, with all indirect evidence. 2012/6/28 Akira Shirakawa <shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> > On 2012-06-27 18:40, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> My dear Friends, >> >> See please my discussion with the management of Defkalion Green >> Technologies: >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**ro/2012/06/interview-with-** >> defkalion-i-business.html<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/interview-with-defkalion-i-business.html> >> > > Good job with the interview. Hoping for way more details at ICCF17, though. > > As a side note, I am positively surprised that DGTG too acknowledges that > with the availability of very low cost energy, technologies and solutions > having high energy requirements might re-emerge in the future. Today it's > all mostly about efficiency (mainly because of legal and political > correctness constraints), which is a nice thing in a pollution-challenged, > resource-limited world, but most often this comes with the cost of > engineering simplicity, economic requirements (especially) and sometimes > reliability, implying little to no access to such technologies in the less > developed/rich countries. > > Facts first, however. DGTG has yet to show them. > > Cheers, > S.A. > >
