>From Jones: > Excellent point, Mike, especially if this is leading directly to generation > of electrical power for sale, and is not some kind of strategic ploy.
>> From: Mike Carrell: >> The two licenses are with rural cooperatives. On the surface this is odd >> and unimperessive. However, it has several advantages for BLP at the >> present stage. BLP would like to have water-fueld power units on line in >> a commercial setting in the near future. They don't need to grapple with >> the regulatory context of a public utility. These cooperatives are >> entrepreneural and make thier own rules to a large extent. They buy >> power from established utilities and distribute it to members of the >> cooperative. A first-generation BLP power unit of any significant >> capacity can be hooked into the local system at low risk and a decrease >> in the outside power bought. >> >> For BLP this brings invauable operating experience, including realistic >> measure of consumeables and reliability. It also aswers critics by >> demonstrating a real system operating 24/7. The cooperatives are >> essentially private, reporting to their members and not to the public >> or stockholders. >> >> Mike Carrell My hunch would also side more on Mr. Carrell's side rather than Dr. Zimmerman's opinion. Mike's prior R&D experience in tech industries (RCA) is helpful in discerning why BLP may have indeed taken this seemingly obscure development path. In the meantime however I would expect that the skeptics will enjoy picking away at BLP's latest actions, perhaps even calling it their final swan song. (Not likely, IMO.) Granted, both POVs are equally valid, even believable, IMO. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if the regulatory issues alone could sink BLP, preventing them from acquiring the necessary evidence to convince a skeptical utility industry. Going through the back door makes sense. I feel like bringing back Horace's recent comment: > ... That would be a useful deal for BLP, to have someone > willing to risk their boiler fire boxes to materials with > not fully established long term properties sealed in metal > tubes. If BLP is actually running such tests then that is a > pretty good sign of progress. If the agreements are only > in anticipation of the possibility of the need to run such > tests, maybe not such a great sign. I wonder if there might be a way to discern if BLP has indeed progressed to the point that their process has been "sealed in metal tubes." My suspicion is that they may be close to doing something like that. Would it be truly recyclable? Mike, would you know? What can you divulge? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
