H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
> As far as I know the biggest source of coal pollution comes from coal
> fired electricity plants. However, Tom Darden seems to be talking
> about coal burning just for heat.
>
I believe he means burning coal and other fossil fuel for all purposes,
including process heat, electric power generation and transportation.
Process heat is only a small fraction of coal used nowadays, so eliminating
this would not have much impact on global warming.
If you believe the two ELFORSK reports, there is every reason to believe
that the Rossi device can replace all sources of energy. There is no
apparent limitations with temperature, COP, power density or energy density
that would prevent this, except possibly in aerospace applications.
Synthetic fuel could be used in these applications.
There has been some anguished discussion of the COP, and a few theories
have been proposed that claim the COP is inherently limited. I think it is
not a problem now, and it never was. Several people have pointed out that
you cannot generate electricity with the COP of a typical cold fusion
experiment. This is true. It is also irrelevant. Is like saying that you
cannot fly across the Atlantic with the 1903 Wright brothers Flyer. Nothing
about that machine seemed fundamentally limited in a way that would prevent
larger, faster, long-range aircraft. Nothing about today's cold fusion
devices gives any indication that future devices will somehow be limited in
COP. The only clear limitation is the melting point of the host metal.
("Host metal" or whatever the heck the nickel and pallladium turn out to
be.)
- Jed
