The NRC needs a commissioner who has broad and expansive familiarity both with light water reactors and also with new designs. The new commissioner should understand light water SMR, molten salt, thorium, and liquid sodium based fuel cycles, and anything else that I might have forgotten. .
The new commissioner should also have some understanding of utility-scale distribution infrastructure, which is key to a coal-to-nuclear transition.
The new commissioner should have a willingness and enthusiasm to implement the NRC's revised mission statement which considers not only risks but also _benefits_ of nuclear energy.
A new commissioner should have some understanding of rising baseload demand from artificial intelligence and electric car charging.
An ideal new commissioner would at least be aware of the literature that shows threshold biological responses to low-dose radiation.
At worst Marzano seems reservedly pro nuclear, opposite of MacFarlane. I have no problems with him, he'll learn a lot in the first months and still have +4 years as an effective commission member.
OK -- prove that your right and I am wrong - with facts - not opinion.
It is now accepted - and has been since the discovery of the electron in 1897:
--- that when the single "valence electron" - found in only the four conductive elements - Gold, Silver, Copper, and Aluminum: -- with it's natural negative magnetic field, when influenced with a "voltage":
--- which is the difference found between two different "electron-volt potentials , connected to a conductive element / circuit - in two different locations - called "poles":
--- add that "voltage" to each valence electrons negative value -- making each one of them "more negative" :
--- causing all of the now influenced valence electrons to move, uniformly and in unison in the entire external circuit - between the two different electron-volt potentials connected to the conductive element / circuit:
--- from the "more negative / less positive" pole - toward the "less negative / more positive" pole -- causing the development of the "heat" / "light"/ and "magnetic fields" developed in motors and generators -- that we pay for.
All of this is contained in the college level textbook "Electricity -- One - Seven" / edited by Harry Mileaf / copyrighted in 1966 - which includes a 55 page chapter on "Resonance" -- with 5 pages of text / spreadsheets /and visual graphs on series and parallel (tank circuit) resonance.
I suggest that you get it / read it / and then think about whether or not you actually know what actually takes place in a "powered circuit?
To David Philips -- that is exactly what I though also -- but that seems not to be the case.
I have to find an investor that will "take the technology - and run with it" -- as I am now 80 years "young" -- but now severely physically disabled from injuries incurred over early Vietnam while in the Navy.
I've had a good run -- but I can't physically start a company - but can only help train via Zoom or SKYPE.
But I believe that it is the negative mindset - brought about by centuries of misinformation that is the main problem.
People just "want to believe - what they think they know" -- including investors - because they have to go to Electronics Engineers or tenured professors for an "opinion" -- who really don't like hearing that they were taught - or have been teaching the subject of Electricity and or Electronics -- if using "Conventional 'Current-Flow' Theory" that they have been using it / teaching it -- both incorrectly and backwards.
"Conventional Theory" does not allow for "over-unity" -- because of what it based on, i.e,, "positive charge" / causing "work to be done" - which is incorrect.
It's voltage influenced electrons - physically moving in a circuit - that cause "work to be done".
To Barry Butterfield -- I never said it was easy -- it wasn't -- and it took a very long time to bring it to it's present finalized design and hand-wired unit.
The reason that there are not 23,000 units "out there now" - is because I first had to figure out "why" I was repeated producing "over-unity" electric power output values - that my US Navy ET Electronics Schooling, i.e., "Conventional "Current-Flow" Theory": stated - was impossible - because it did not address "resonance" as "over-unity".
--- no easily available written information;
--- I had to self-fund the project -as no funding was offered;
--- a total uninformed bias against "over-unity power production being even "possible" even though the 1904 E.T. Whittaker Papers prove "over-unity";
--- no available technical help - including being screamed at by a former Dean of the School of Electronics at the University of Washington for even suggesting such a thing:
--- making a living as a structural / mechanical design/ drafter - which was a full time job;
--- waiting for electrical components to be designed and made available;
It took decades to figure out how to get from the first simple tests - to where it is today -- because I had to do it myself.
Advanced reactors need an exit ramp. Congress should hold a submission for bids for unique advanced reactor regulation frameworks from third parties, such as Devanney's Underwriter's Certification
Even if not chosen the NRC will experience the new incentive of the possibility of losing jurisdiction over designs deemed passively safe
Hi Mr. Butterfield -- it's not 23,000 units; - it 230+ units per 1000 MW, --and the answer to your question is simple - and follows:
When the Science of Classic Physics stated it's position on what a power supply can and can't do -- by stating:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power... ...inferring that "over-unity power production was impossible..." (which was based on the centuries of former test results): -- the position was "put in place":
--- before Nikola Tesla bean his seminal work on multi-phase AC power in 1882, and
--- although the "substance" of the position was correct - the verbiage chosen - was incorrect.
Had the statement been made that:
--- "...no power supply can develop more power than it is physically and electrically capable of producing..." -- both the statement and position would have been correct.
But because of the "choice of words" used to describe the position: -- "...we just didn't look for it..." - and we now have the Global Warming / Climate Change situation on our hands that we are trying to deal with.
Mr. Nordhaus feels that Nuclear Power is the way to go - and I believe that Nuclear Power isn't necessary - because of the stated reasons in my reply.
I first proved the verbiage used in the Physics position to be invalid - when a Tesla based / solid-state design I built - continuously produced an electrical output while powering a resistive load:
-- at 103% "over-unity"
--- on May 1st. 1982.
I next built a Tesla based system - using a 120 VAC / 60 Hz/ AC motor to very lightly drive a 60 Hz / AC power generator - which was powering a 120 VAC / 60 Hz/ AC motor as it's load.
That system - tested by Northwest Laboratories of Seattle WA Inc (est.1896) - at their facility / with their test equipment / tested "...their way..."
--- continuously produced a "pure", i.e., no harmonics or electrical "noise" - perfect sinusoidal AC waveform output while powering the AC load motor.
The "electrically developed" continuous output power level was:
--- 120 VAC / 60 Hz. / 0.06 A (60 mA).
The 120 VAC / 60 Hz / wall-jack power connected to the AC drive motor - had to be "electrically" reduced, using a variable power resistor - so that the 60 Hz AC generator's RPM could be slowed down to where it could produce it's correct output power to the AC load motor.
That "reduced" input power level connected to the drive motor was:
--- 75 VAC / 60 Hz / 0.03 A (30 mA) -- which is:
--- 293% "over-unity" continuous power production - conducted on
--- Sept. 10th. 1984.
That test totally invalidated the verbiage used in the Physics stated position -- which has never been challenged to my knowledge - by anyone other than myself -- because people, especially Academia and "officials" (if my 60+ year project history is an example) -- "just seem to want to continue believing what they want to believe".
All US Government Agencies / US Universities / US located entities contacted over that 60+ year history have all refused either funding or technical help -- full stop.
In fact: -- US/DOE-IPO Title 17 expressly prohibits the US Government from funding any power supply / source that is not "commercialized" (which is undefined) or "accepted" (also undefined).
That is why - in March of this year - when I received an official offer to apply for funding through the EC Horizon Europe funding program -- from
--- EC President Ursula von der Leyen:
--- I accepted it - because I was tired of the US rejection of a proven / US Patented project.
The US Patent is US 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS / with "regenerative feedback" / all 16 claims / with no changes or redactions requested / granted in full on
--- Sept. 8th. 1992 / a little over one year from it's submittal date.
I is the first US Patent granted that included "over-unity power production" - although unclaimed.
"Over-unity" was specifically not claimed - as it was well know that either the US/DOD or US/ DOE would have the application rejected.
However ---- careful reading of the Patent ABSTRACT clearly describes a small potion of the "electronically developed" output power being routed "back to the source" as "regenerative feedback" power - which causes two simultaneous circuitry changes:
1.) the on-board "start-up" power source - 2 standard size "rechargeable" 9 VDC batteries - are "electrically" shut-off, and
2.) the "regenerative feedback" power continues to power the circuitry while it continuously / "electronically develops it's "over-unity / clean / electric power output to power it's dedicated load.
All resonant tank circuit - "...developed power level..." to "...connected input power level... ratios - are:
--- more than "1" - with "1" signifying "unity" -- so:
--- all resonant tank circuits operate "over-unity" - without touching any Laws of Classic Physics / the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics / the "Conservation of Energy Theory / Perpetual Motion / or Sustained Action.
The EC application is being speeded up - to go through the EC / EIC Accelerator for Breakthrough / Disruptive Technology program - not as an "idea" but as a completed project.
Both the "pure" / no harmonics / perfect sinusoidal ac waveform / "electrically reduced" input power level "connected to the electric circuit - which is what the generator and load motor were - :
--- "...to it's absolute minimum power value..." and the "developed power level in the circuit itself - "
--- "to it's absolute maximum power value..." - are the signatures:
--- of a "resonant tank circuit" -- which we have been using as the "radio station - tuning circuitry" found in every AM or FM radio manufactured since Tesla invented, and then applied for his US Patent;
--- on Mar. 20th. 1900
--- over 124 years ago.
And if you get a copy of the college level textbook written specifically on the subject of "electricity" and not ELectroncis - named "...Electricity One-Seven..." edited by Mr. Harry Mileaf / copyrighted 1966 --- in the 55 page Chapter on Resonance - you will find 5 pages on Resonance - that spell out, in text; spread-sheets; and visual graphs: -- specifically how "Series Resonance" ALWAYS produces:
--- a higher - (totally useable) "over-unity" output voltage level (without a transformer) - and Parallel (tank circuit) Resonance ALWAYS develops:
--- a larger output to input "over-unity" amperage level.
The simple answer to your question is -- Academia / Government / and Private funding sources - until the request letter from President von der Leyen - are the reasons why their aren't 23,000 units being manufactured - for reasons known only to them -- because Lord knows I've tried over the years and decades.
It might also be - from the commercial viewpoint -- that they knew that they could never match the:
--- $0.10 "...per hour... - $72 per 30 day month / universal / set billing rate (with no increases):
--- for all of the clean electricity needed at each "site" - as defined in my "just previous" comment.
It's called "Greed" - and speaking about that subject here in the US -- it's really dug-in at the Federal feeding trough.
I hope this answers your question.
If you send me an email address -- to -- scotsman7@comcast.net -- I'll attach a copy of the Northwest Labs test report -- and you can Google my US Patent - if at all interested in either.
But it still begs the question: if it is so easy, why isn't it in widespread use?
Personally, I don't buy the global warming alarmist. Yes, it's real, but not human driven or even carbon driven. Am happy to exchange email, but not right now. I will reach out to you in 10 days.
Whether Mr. Marzano is qualified or not - is really not germane concerning new nuclear facilities being built - big or small.
What is germane is the push - by those that believe in them (which is their right) for more Nuclear power -- because Nuclear power is based on using nuclear "heat" to produce steam / to power a revolving generator / to produce the potential / to cause electrons to move in a circuit/ , i.e., produce electricity -- at a huge cost and production of waste products - that take "a very long time" to decay.
All of that is not needed - if the whole system's end result is developing a potential to move that electron in that circuit - where that moving electron is needed.
Tesla developed the means of accomplishing both higher levels of "potential -- without using a voltage transformer -- using "series resonance". and larger amounts of "amperage" - again without a transformer-- using parallel resonance, i.e., a resonant tank circuit:
--- which we have been using for over 124 years since Tesla invented the radio and applied for his patent for it - in 1900.
And the information on the POD MOD which has been sent to you - costing less than $2000 per unit / which can continuously / "electronically develop" the required electricity "at - each - site" - without the huge reactor(s) and power grid.
Connecting 230+ POD MODs - one would have the equivalent electric power output, at 480 VDC or 480 VAC - the usable end result - of a 1000 MW Nuclear reactor -- but at a cost of only $4,608,000 dollars for the components - instead of the Billions required for both a 1000 MW Nuclear Reactor and associated power grids.
And who needs a 1000 MW of electricity - in one place?
See the point?
The Marzano dust-up is a fly on the wall - compared to what the Nuclear
industry and it's backers are pushing - which is again their right.
Yeah, that's just another version of Rossi's E-Cat and a thousand other scams that grifters put out to sucker in dimwit investors with money to burn. Maybe they get a tax deduction or something, who knows maybe you can even earn IRA green credits for it.
Nobody has succeeded in >400yrs in trying to break energy conservation, within measurement error range.
This guy doesn't need to make a marketable "POD MOD" producing prestigious amounts of electrical energy. All he has to do is show he can produce more output energy than input energy by a fraction of 1%. And then he can phone up the Nobel committee and tell them, "ok fellows, just wrap up my Nobel Prize and send it to me, I'm a little short of cash right now, so send in advance, since me winning next year is a just a rubber stamp".
And with that the entire foundation of modern physics will be broken, a revolution in physics much greater than the discovery of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
You convinced me. I wrote my senator Merkley who is one the committee urging him to voted against confirmation of Marzano.
The NRC needs a commissioner who has broad and expansive familiarity both with light water reactors and also with new designs. The new commissioner should understand light water SMR, molten salt, thorium, and liquid sodium based fuel cycles, and anything else that I might have forgotten. .
The new commissioner should also have some understanding of utility-scale distribution infrastructure, which is key to a coal-to-nuclear transition.
The new commissioner should have a willingness and enthusiasm to implement the NRC's revised mission statement which considers not only risks but also _benefits_ of nuclear energy.
A new commissioner should have some understanding of rising baseload demand from artificial intelligence and electric car charging.
An ideal new commissioner would at least be aware of the literature that shows threshold biological responses to low-dose radiation.
At worst Marzano seems reservedly pro nuclear, opposite of MacFarlane. I have no problems with him, he'll learn a lot in the first months and still have +4 years as an effective commission member.
OK -- prove that your right and I am wrong - with facts - not opinion.
It is now accepted - and has been since the discovery of the electron in 1897:
--- that when the single "valence electron" - found in only the four conductive elements - Gold, Silver, Copper, and Aluminum: -- with it's natural negative magnetic field, when influenced with a "voltage":
--- which is the difference found between two different "electron-volt potentials , connected to a conductive element / circuit - in two different locations - called "poles":
--- add that "voltage" to each valence electrons negative value -- making each one of them "more negative" :
--- causing all of the now influenced valence electrons to move, uniformly and in unison in the entire external circuit - between the two different electron-volt potentials connected to the conductive element / circuit:
--- from the "more negative / less positive" pole - toward the "less negative / more positive" pole -- causing the development of the "heat" / "light"/ and "magnetic fields" developed in motors and generators -- that we pay for.
All of this is contained in the college level textbook "Electricity -- One - Seven" / edited by Harry Mileaf / copyrighted in 1966 - which includes a 55 page chapter on "Resonance" -- with 5 pages of text / spreadsheets /and visual graphs on series and parallel (tank circuit) resonance.
I suggest that you get it / read it / and then think about whether or not you actually know what actually takes place in a "powered circuit?
To David Philips -- that is exactly what I though also -- but that seems not to be the case.
I have to find an investor that will "take the technology - and run with it" -- as I am now 80 years "young" -- but now severely physically disabled from injuries incurred over early Vietnam while in the Navy.
I've had a good run -- but I can't physically start a company - but can only help train via Zoom or SKYPE.
But I believe that it is the negative mindset - brought about by centuries of misinformation that is the main problem.
People just "want to believe - what they think they know" -- including investors - because they have to go to Electronics Engineers or tenured professors for an "opinion" -- who really don't like hearing that they were taught - or have been teaching the subject of Electricity and or Electronics -- if using "Conventional 'Current-Flow' Theory" that they have been using it / teaching it -- both incorrectly and backwards.
"Conventional Theory" does not allow for "over-unity" -- because of what it based on, i.e,, "positive charge" / causing "work to be done" - which is incorrect.
It's voltage influenced electrons - physically moving in a circuit - that cause "work to be done".
To Barry Butterfield -- I never said it was easy -- it wasn't -- and it took a very long time to bring it to it's present finalized design and hand-wired unit.
The reason that there are not 23,000 units "out there now" - is because I first had to figure out "why" I was repeated producing "over-unity" electric power output values - that my US Navy ET Electronics Schooling, i.e., "Conventional "Current-Flow" Theory": stated - was impossible - because it did not address "resonance" as "over-unity".
--- no easily available written information;
--- I had to self-fund the project -as no funding was offered;
--- a total uninformed bias against "over-unity power production being even "possible" even though the 1904 E.T. Whittaker Papers prove "over-unity";
--- no available technical help - including being screamed at by a former Dean of the School of Electronics at the University of Washington for even suggesting such a thing:
--- making a living as a structural / mechanical design/ drafter - which was a full time job;
--- waiting for electrical components to be designed and made available;
It took decades to figure out how to get from the first simple tests - to where it is today -- because I had to do it myself.
Advanced reactors need an exit ramp. Congress should hold a submission for bids for unique advanced reactor regulation frameworks from third parties, such as Devanney's Underwriter's Certification
Even if not chosen the NRC will experience the new incentive of the possibility of losing jurisdiction over designs deemed passively safe
To Mr. Butterfield, -- some times 80 year old fingers make mistakes.
I miss-quoted the number of required power supply units needed to duplicate the output power of a 1000 MW Nuclear Plant.
It's 480 V x 480 Amps = .2304 MW =which equals 4340+ units - so use 4350 units / at $2000 each =
--- $8,680,555 - say $9 Million for the components .
I apologize for the mistake.
Scott McKie -- scotsman7@comcast.net
Then do it! At that cost you should easily find an investor.
Hi Mr. Butterfield -- it's not 23,000 units; - it 230+ units per 1000 MW, --and the answer to your question is simple - and follows:
When the Science of Classic Physics stated it's position on what a power supply can and can't do -- by stating:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power... ...inferring that "over-unity power production was impossible..." (which was based on the centuries of former test results): -- the position was "put in place":
--- before Nikola Tesla bean his seminal work on multi-phase AC power in 1882, and
--- although the "substance" of the position was correct - the verbiage chosen - was incorrect.
Had the statement been made that:
--- "...no power supply can develop more power than it is physically and electrically capable of producing..." -- both the statement and position would have been correct.
But because of the "choice of words" used to describe the position: -- "...we just didn't look for it..." - and we now have the Global Warming / Climate Change situation on our hands that we are trying to deal with.
Mr. Nordhaus feels that Nuclear Power is the way to go - and I believe that Nuclear Power isn't necessary - because of the stated reasons in my reply.
I first proved the verbiage used in the Physics position to be invalid - when a Tesla based / solid-state design I built - continuously produced an electrical output while powering a resistive load:
-- at 103% "over-unity"
--- on May 1st. 1982.
I next built a Tesla based system - using a 120 VAC / 60 Hz/ AC motor to very lightly drive a 60 Hz / AC power generator - which was powering a 120 VAC / 60 Hz/ AC motor as it's load.
That system - tested by Northwest Laboratories of Seattle WA Inc (est.1896) - at their facility / with their test equipment / tested "...their way..."
--- continuously produced a "pure", i.e., no harmonics or electrical "noise" - perfect sinusoidal AC waveform output while powering the AC load motor.
The "electrically developed" continuous output power level was:
--- 120 VAC / 60 Hz. / 0.06 A (60 mA).
The 120 VAC / 60 Hz / wall-jack power connected to the AC drive motor - had to be "electrically" reduced, using a variable power resistor - so that the 60 Hz AC generator's RPM could be slowed down to where it could produce it's correct output power to the AC load motor.
That "reduced" input power level connected to the drive motor was:
--- 75 VAC / 60 Hz / 0.03 A (30 mA) -- which is:
--- 293% "over-unity" continuous power production - conducted on
--- Sept. 10th. 1984.
That test totally invalidated the verbiage used in the Physics stated position -- which has never been challenged to my knowledge - by anyone other than myself -- because people, especially Academia and "officials" (if my 60+ year project history is an example) -- "just seem to want to continue believing what they want to believe".
All US Government Agencies / US Universities / US located entities contacted over that 60+ year history have all refused either funding or technical help -- full stop.
In fact: -- US/DOE-IPO Title 17 expressly prohibits the US Government from funding any power supply / source that is not "commercialized" (which is undefined) or "accepted" (also undefined).
That is why - in March of this year - when I received an official offer to apply for funding through the EC Horizon Europe funding program -- from
--- EC President Ursula von der Leyen:
--- I accepted it - because I was tired of the US rejection of a proven / US Patented project.
The US Patent is US 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS / with "regenerative feedback" / all 16 claims / with no changes or redactions requested / granted in full on
--- Sept. 8th. 1992 / a little over one year from it's submittal date.
I is the first US Patent granted that included "over-unity power production" - although unclaimed.
"Over-unity" was specifically not claimed - as it was well know that either the US/DOD or US/ DOE would have the application rejected.
However ---- careful reading of the Patent ABSTRACT clearly describes a small potion of the "electronically developed" output power being routed "back to the source" as "regenerative feedback" power - which causes two simultaneous circuitry changes:
1.) the on-board "start-up" power source - 2 standard size "rechargeable" 9 VDC batteries - are "electrically" shut-off, and
2.) the "regenerative feedback" power continues to power the circuitry while it continuously / "electronically develops it's "over-unity / clean / electric power output to power it's dedicated load.
All resonant tank circuit - "...developed power level..." to "...connected input power level... ratios - are:
--- more than "1" - with "1" signifying "unity" -- so:
--- all resonant tank circuits operate "over-unity" - without touching any Laws of Classic Physics / the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics / the "Conservation of Energy Theory / Perpetual Motion / or Sustained Action.
The EC application is being speeded up - to go through the EC / EIC Accelerator for Breakthrough / Disruptive Technology program - not as an "idea" but as a completed project.
Both the "pure" / no harmonics / perfect sinusoidal ac waveform / "electrically reduced" input power level "connected to the electric circuit - which is what the generator and load motor were - :
--- "...to it's absolute minimum power value..." and the "developed power level in the circuit itself - "
--- "to it's absolute maximum power value..." - are the signatures:
--- of a "resonant tank circuit" -- which we have been using as the "radio station - tuning circuitry" found in every AM or FM radio manufactured since Tesla invented, and then applied for his US Patent;
--- on Mar. 20th. 1900
--- over 124 years ago.
And if you get a copy of the college level textbook written specifically on the subject of "electricity" and not ELectroncis - named "...Electricity One-Seven..." edited by Mr. Harry Mileaf / copyrighted 1966 --- in the 55 page Chapter on Resonance - you will find 5 pages on Resonance - that spell out, in text; spread-sheets; and visual graphs: -- specifically how "Series Resonance" ALWAYS produces:
--- a higher - (totally useable) "over-unity" output voltage level (without a transformer) - and Parallel (tank circuit) Resonance ALWAYS develops:
--- a larger output to input "over-unity" amperage level.
The simple answer to your question is -- Academia / Government / and Private funding sources - until the request letter from President von der Leyen - are the reasons why their aren't 23,000 units being manufactured - for reasons known only to them -- because Lord knows I've tried over the years and decades.
It might also be - from the commercial viewpoint -- that they knew that they could never match the:
--- $0.10 "...per hour... - $72 per 30 day month / universal / set billing rate (with no increases):
--- for all of the clean electricity needed at each "site" - as defined in my "just previous" comment.
It's called "Greed" - and speaking about that subject here in the US -- it's really dug-in at the Federal feeding trough.
I hope this answers your question.
If you send me an email address -- to -- scotsman7@comcast.net -- I'll attach a copy of the Northwest Labs test report -- and you can Google my US Patent - if at all interested in either.
A lengthy response; thank you.
But it still begs the question: if it is so easy, why isn't it in widespread use?
Personally, I don't buy the global warming alarmist. Yes, it's real, but not human driven or even carbon driven. Am happy to exchange email, but not right now. I will reach out to you in 10 days.
To Mr. Nordhaus -
Whether Mr. Marzano is qualified or not - is really not germane concerning new nuclear facilities being built - big or small.
What is germane is the push - by those that believe in them (which is their right) for more Nuclear power -- because Nuclear power is based on using nuclear "heat" to produce steam / to power a revolving generator / to produce the potential / to cause electrons to move in a circuit/ , i.e., produce electricity -- at a huge cost and production of waste products - that take "a very long time" to decay.
All of that is not needed - if the whole system's end result is developing a potential to move that electron in that circuit - where that moving electron is needed.
Tesla developed the means of accomplishing both higher levels of "potential -- without using a voltage transformer -- using "series resonance". and larger amounts of "amperage" - again without a transformer-- using parallel resonance, i.e., a resonant tank circuit:
--- which we have been using for over 124 years since Tesla invented the radio and applied for his patent for it - in 1900.
And the information on the POD MOD which has been sent to you - costing less than $2000 per unit / which can continuously / "electronically develop" the required electricity "at - each - site" - without the huge reactor(s) and power grid.
Connecting 230+ POD MODs - one would have the equivalent electric power output, at 480 VDC or 480 VAC - the usable end result - of a 1000 MW Nuclear reactor -- but at a cost of only $4,608,000 dollars for the components - instead of the Billions required for both a 1000 MW Nuclear Reactor and associated power grids.
And who needs a 1000 MW of electricity - in one place?
See the point?
The Marzano dust-up is a fly on the wall - compared to what the Nuclear
industry and it's backers are pushing - which is again their right.
But who needs it?
So if this is so good, why aren't there 23,000 being built right now?
Yeah, that's just another version of Rossi's E-Cat and a thousand other scams that grifters put out to sucker in dimwit investors with money to burn. Maybe they get a tax deduction or something, who knows maybe you can even earn IRA green credits for it.
Nobody has succeeded in >400yrs in trying to break energy conservation, within measurement error range.
This guy doesn't need to make a marketable "POD MOD" producing prestigious amounts of electrical energy. All he has to do is show he can produce more output energy than input energy by a fraction of 1%. And then he can phone up the Nobel committee and tell them, "ok fellows, just wrap up my Nobel Prize and send it to me, I'm a little short of cash right now, so send in advance, since me winning next year is a just a rubber stamp".
And with that the entire foundation of modern physics will be broken, a revolution in physics much greater than the discovery of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
The urge to harvest Bernie's Free Shit Tree has been growing since Harris got herself appointed fearless leader.
The bill will come due next January.
You confuse the difference between generating power and moving it.