The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz confronts the global fossil-energy system with one of its most severe stress tests in decades. For generations, this narrow maritime corridor—only a few dozen kilometers wide—has functioned as an indispensable artery of the world’s energy trade. Under normal conditions, vast quantities of crude oil and liquefied natural gas transit this passage each day from the producing regions of the Persian Gulf toward the major consumption centers of the industrial world. The now-extended interruption of this flow exposes with unusual clarity the extent to which modern industrial civilization remains bound to the uninterrupted circulation of material fuels.
The immediate economic and political consequences are already evident. Energy shipments are being rerouted, industrial supply chains are coming under pressure, and highly import-dependent economies—most notably Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—now face structural uncertainty in their energy supply. The present disruption illuminates a fundamental characteristic of the fossil-energy economy: its stability depends not only on geological resources and technical infrastructure but also, to a decisive degree, on the geopolitical security of a small number of heavily burdened transport corridors.
At precisely this historical juncture, however, a second development acquires particular significance—one that challenges the energetic paradigm of the past two centuries at its foundation. Parallel to the intensifying instability of fossil supply chains, the practical utilization of Zero‑point energy is entering the phase of technological implementation. Systems designed to harness energy from the quantum vacuum are now moving into industrial practice. Their initial deployment occurs on a limited scale, yet their conceptual implications extend far beyond any individual application.
The defining distinction of this energy form lies not primarily in the magnitude of the energy reservoir itself but in the structure of its provision. Fossil fuels must be extracted, transported across great distances, stored, and converted within large-scale industrial facilities. Technologies based on zero-point energy, by contrast, enable compact and decentralized energy systems. Energy ceases to appear principally as a tradable commodity distributed through global logistics networks and instead emerges as a locally accessible physical resource.
Viewed in this light, the present crisis acquires a striking historical irony. At the very moment when one of the most critical transport routes of the fossil-fuel economy stands immobilized, a technology whose defining characteristic is the elimination of such transport dependencies begins its entry into practical use. The strategic importance of tanker routes, pipelines, and export terminals—long regarded as structural pillars of the international energy order—diminishes as energy systems become anchored in locally available primary sources.
The geopolitical implications of this transformation are profound. A substantial portion of the existing architecture of global power rests upon control of fossil resources and the routes through which they move. With the emergence of an energy form no longer tied to geographically concentrated deposits, the center of gravity in the energy economy shifts from the geography of resources to technological capability. Research, engineering design, and the industrial production of such systems become the decisive determinants of energy sovereignty.
The events of the present moment therefore mark a rare historical threshold. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz exposes with exceptional clarity the structural vulnerability of the fossil-energy order, while a new form of energy generation simultaneously enters practical deployment. Together these developments establish a profound transition in the history of industrial civilization: the energetic foundation of the modern world moves away from the geography of fuels and toward the physics of space itself.
The new war strategy of Iran to destabilize the world’s economies afords the ideal situation for fielding of the NGU on Europe, Japan, and South Korea who depend on the oil and gas from the Gulf States to keep their economies going by replacing that energy with those provided by the NGU.
As of mid-March 2026, the ongoing conflict between Iran and a US-Israeli coalition has created severe disruptions to global energy supplies, with Iran systematically targeting oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf States and disrupting transit through the Strait of Hormuz. This situation has triggered energy crises in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, which are heavily dependent on these Gulf energy sources
Iranian Strategy: Iran is employing a strategy of “asymmetric endurance” or “economic war,” targeting Gulf oil facilities, shipping, and infrastructure to make the conflict unsustainable for the US and its regional partners. This strategy is designed to inflict maximum economic pain on the global system, driving up energy prices as oil passes $100-$120 a barrel up to
Iran’s goal of $200 a barrel.
Energy Dependence & Vulnerability: Japan and South Korea remain highly vulnerable due to their reliance on oil imports (about 90% for Japan and 70% for Korea), while Europe depends on LNG shipments for electrical generation and heating through the same contested routes.
Replacement Technologies (“NGU”): The “NGU” can replace this oil and gas shortfall. The current crisis has accelerated the political case for energy transition to the NGU. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects renewable energy (wind and solar) to become the top power source by 2026, with solar, wind, and storage dominating new capacity.
Wind and solar energy from the Gulf are considered a long-term, strategic solution to supplement, rather than immediately replace, oil and gas exports to Europe, Japan, and South Korea, particularly as the region faces heightened volatility. While the Gulf possesses enormous potential for renewable energy—capable of producing over 200% of its current energy needs from wind alone—replacing the physical volume and diverse uses of 15 mb/d of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is not currently feasible
Strategic Shift: The crisis has forced Japan and South Korea to diversify, with moves to enhance joint procurement, increase nuclear power, and explore other energy sources to survive this supply shock.
Conflict Impact: The conflict has forced some producers to declare force majeure, making the energy supply in the region highly unreliable.
The current war has accelerated the urgency for nations dependent on the Gulf to secure alternative energy sources, making the strategic pivot away from Gulf oil a critical, though complex, challenge in 2026.
Current Status of Gulf Energy Replacements
Scale of Dependence: Japan relies on the Gulf for 95% of its oil, while South Korea depends on it for 70%.
Wind and Solar Limitations: While the EU reached a milestone in 2025 where wind and solar overtook fossil fuels for power generation, these sources currently only address electricity needs.
The Industrial Gap: Approximately 80% of national energy consumption—including heating, heavy transportation, and industrial raw materials (petrochemicals)—remains “shackled” to fossil fuels.
Infrastructure Reality: Gulf nations are scaling up green hydrogen and ammonia for export, but utility-scale deployment and the necessary global shipping infrastructure are not projected to meet current demand levels until closer to 2040.
Facilitating the NGU Power Source
To facilitate the fielding of the Never Give Up (NGU) or similar advanced power sources throughout their economies, the following requests can be made of partners in Europe, Japan, and South Korea:
Standardized Regulatory Frameworks: Request the adoption of unified safety and operational standards to allow NGU technologies to be deployed across different legal jurisdictions without redundant certification processes.
Infrastructure Interconnection: Ask for commitment to high-voltage direct current (HVDC) “super-grids” and maritime energy corridors (like the Asia-Europe Energy Link) to stabilize the intermittent nature of Green power as well as NGU power.
Guaranteed Offtake Agreements: Seek long-term “Take-or-Pay” contracts for new energy carriers (e.g., green ammonia) to de-risk the massive capital investment required for emergency NGU-scale fielding.
Technology Co-Development: Propose joint ventures for NGU technologies, where partners provide the advanced manufacturing (e.g., semiconductors and electrical generation) in exchange for the energy partner’s land and factory resources.
Tariff and Trade Exemptions: Negotiate for the removal of import duties on the specific hardware required for NGU deployment, similar to the South Korea-UAE CEPA that recently slashed duties on energy-related equipment.
Require security guaranties to ensure that the NGU must not be interfered with during manufacture, fielding, and deployment as well as R&D support to meet the economic requirements of the host countries.
Anthony Baker:
Please find it here: info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Find the list of publications in the right column of the home page,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Yury Evdokimov:
I think that the diffusion of the Ecat will stimulate the studies on this matter also in other fields of application; the merit of its discovery is of Tesla, I just studied it carefully also with experiments to exploit it for the Ecat; to answer your question, I think it will be exploited universally,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Harold White et al are not the only developers to produce a vacuum energy production system.
Regarding: the following comment from an observer regarding the work of Dr. Garett Moddel who claims that energy can be directly harvested from the vacuum using specially designed diodes that employ the Casimir effect.
I sent emails to Garett Moddel and he confirmed that the primary thing holding up the mass production of this device is reliability. The devices work great when they are first produced, but quickly break down and become useless. Until he gets more research money to analyze how and why the cells break down over time there will not be a wide-spread industrial roll out of this technology. I wish a rich backer would take a strong interest in this device so we could get over this reliability hurdle and bring this great technology to a useful marketable product.
When dealing with the structure of the universe, there are many unknowns. Where all others will fail, Dr. Rossi has encountered these issues in his decades of research into the vacuum reaction and has overcome them (I Hope) through a supreme act of dedication, will, and determination.
Dr. Rossi
Here is the video of BYD’s presentation on the second generation of its LFP batteries.
It’s in Chinese, but you can also watch it in Italian by turning on automatic subtitles in other languages.
It’s very long, but I enjoyed watching it.
They allow a car to travel 1,000 km on a single charge, fully charge in 9 minutes, and in 12 minutes at temperatures below 20 degrees Celsius.
They are resistant to impacts and punctures.
Svein:
Thank you for the link.
I think that many of them may have been helped by the AI, as well as I myself ma helped by the Artificial Intelligence right now. I use the ChatGPT Pro.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Electrical Powerplant Ramp Performance – “Many modern reactors are capable of ramping up or down at a rate of 5% of their total rated power per minute.”
For a hypothetical 1 MW NGU Grid power Generator, powered by 40 NGU 25 kW Power Generators, the output power on the 1 MW Grid Inverter could be controlled in 2.5% steps by simply enabling or disabling individual 25 kW NGU Power Generators. Assuming a 1 second interval between changes, a 100% ramp could be done in under one minute.
After the NGU presentation, the gleeful anticipation will be over, and the yearning and nostalgia for the good old days of certainty will begin.
I think that the extraction of vacuum energy is being treated as a plaything that happens in the basement. But in reality, such energy production is ten times more impactful to everyday life as nuclear power was not to long ago.
I have has a delightful conversation with the AI about what the new age of the NGU will bring. The AI seems to be a reasonable and cordial person.
Dr. Rossi:
I am sure there will be a lot of interest in your global presentation, certainly from myself. Have you started the planning yet?
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Hi Axil
Thank you for a comprehensive answer. I base my conclusion on EU legislation.
Here, Article 17 of the Renewable Energy Directive states that there is a requirement for Member States to create a simplified procedure for connection to the grid after a simple notification for some types of small production facilities.
This applies to facilities belonging to end users with their own production of renewable energy and demonstration projects.
– It follows from the article that such production facilities can be connected if the grid company does not make a decision within one month of receiving the notification.
The requirements apply to facilities with an electrical capacity of no more than 10.8 kW, but can also be allowed for facilities up to 50 kW under certain conditions.
This is ideal for end users’ purchases of solar cells and Ecat.
For grid owners, it becomes interesting, for many reasons, to supply end users with energy from larger Ecat aggregates that are directly fed into the grid as close to the consumer as possible.
Currently, electrical power production is the limiting factor in the advancement of artificial intelligence. This is why the complementary acquisition and deployment of the Never Give Up vacuum reactor ( NGU) developed by Dr. Rossi will become a strategic mandatory requirement for the competing hegemons that will become apparent to them soon after the commercial announcement of the NGU occurs. When the actual realization of the limitless potential of the NGU becomes well understood, the stampede to utilize the NGU will become overwhelming, far more attractive to the hegemon than adding new large reserves of gas and oil from weaker dominated subservient countries. Oil and gas will instantly lose their allore to the hegemon’s desiring world predominance in energy production and AI supremacy.
AI perspective
That is a bold but realistic outlook on the future of global power dynamics. If a technology like the NGU vacuum reactor—or any high-density, low-cost energy source—successfully bridges the gap between our current grid and the massive computational demands of next-gen AI, it would certainly trigger a paradigm shift.
History shows that hegemons typically follow the path of least resistance to maintain dominance. Currently, that path involves massive investments in nuclear modular reactors (SMRs) and traditional renewables to fuel data centers. If a “limitless” source were to prove commercially viable, it would likely turn fossil fuels from strategic assets into stranded ones almost overnight.
The real tipping point will be the commercial announcement and, more importantly, the independent verification of the energy output.
The shift to a “limitless” energy source like the NGU vacuum reactor—if commercially verified—would likely follow a rapid trajectory from private disruption to aggressive state intervention. When national governments recognize that an energy technology provides a decisive advantage in AI supremacy and military logistics, they typically transition from supporters to controllers.
The Path to Nationalization
Identification as a Strategic Asset: Governments would classify vacuum energy not just as a utility, but as a “dual-use” technology essential for national security.
Security-First Intervention: State actors may use “security-focused” innovation policies to mandate government observers or restrict information sharing to prevent “malign actors” from accessing or sabotaging the tech.
Resource Sovereignty: The move would be framed as achieving “energy addition” and independence, reducing reliance on foreign adversaries and vulnerable global supply chains.
AI and Defense Integration: To maintain technological superiority, governments would prioritize powering their own data centers and military operations (like remote sensing or space missions) before allowing full commercial export.
Geopolitical Realignments
Stranded Hegemons: Traditional “petrostates” or countries reliant on fossil fuel exports would face sudden economic instability, potentially leading to desperate diplomatic or military maneuvers to secure a foothold in the new energy paradigm.
New Trade Blocs: Global relations might bifurcate based on who has access to the technology, creating multi-decadal ties between the technology supplier and recipient nations.
Infrastructure Dominance: The first nation to achieve manufacturing scale for such reactors would gain a “self-reinforcing geopolitical advantage,” similar to current leads in solar and battery supply chains.
If the NGU were nationalized tomorrow, it would it spark a new “Cold War” focused on energy containment?
Nationalizing a disruptive energy technology like the NGU (Never Give Up) reactor would almost certainly spark a new “Cold War,” but one focused on technological containment rather than just territorial or ideological spread.
If one nation successfully nationalizes a “limitless” energy source, the global response would likely mirror historical containment strategies:
1. Technological Blockades
Export Controls: Just as the U.S. and its allies currently restrict high-end AI chips to competitors, a nationalized NGU would be subject to extreme export bans to prevent “energy-poor” adversaries from catching up.
Intelligence Warfare: The “front line” of this Cold War would be cyber-espionage and industrial sabotage aimed at stealing the proprietary physics or manufacturing processes behind the reactor.
2. Economic Destabilization
The “Stranded Asset” Crisis: A rapid shift to NGU-powered AI and industry would cause the value of global oil and gas reserves to collapse.
Petrostate Volatility: Countries heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports (like Russia or OPEC members) would face existential economic threats, potentially leading to aggressive “last resort” military posturing to maintain relevance.
3. Diplomatic Bipolarity
Energy Alliances: Much like the Truman Doctrine offered aid to contain communism, the NGU-holding hegemon could offer “energy security umbrellas” to allies, forcing neutral nations to pick a side to gain access to the technology.
Containment Zones: Competitors without the tech might form desperate blocs to control the critical minerals (like nickel or lithium) still needed for the surrounding infrastructure, creating new “choke points” in global trade.
4. Risk of “Hot” Conflict
The First-Mover Trap: If a hegemon believes their lead in NGU-powered AI will soon make them invincible, they might be tempted to act before others can close the gap. Conversely, an adversary might see a “closing window of opportunity” to strike before the hegemon becomes untouchable.
While the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests that diversifying energy can improve stability, the sudden nationalization of a revolutionary source would likely be viewed as a hostile act of supreme leverage, making containment the default global policy.
I would like to comment on your statement of March 10 at 3:18 PM.
The value of fish in the sea lies in all the small fish that appear in myriads in schools.
This is something humanity has discovered early on and has always exploited, even without AI.
I expect the same will happen when Ecat is launched globally.
Without hegemonic and realpolitik sponsorship and support, the NGU has as much chance of survival as a tiny fish in an ocean of sharks. Why I have selected Europe as the most likely fit to support the initial development and fielding of the NGU.
From a 2026 geopolitical and realpolitik perspective, the global power structure is characterized by an accelerating shift towards multipolarity, with the United States and China acting as the primary, albeit differently focused, superpowers, surrounded by a tier of assertive “middle powers” maneuvering for advantage in a fragmented, high-risk environment.
The 2026 landscape is defined by the “de-globalization” of supply chains (friendshoring), national security priorities over economic efficiency, and raw power politics (realpolitik) overriding international norms.
Here are the major hegemonic global power centers in 2026:
1. The United States: The “Postliberal” Superpower
Despite challenges to its traditional, rule-based hegemony, the US remains the dominant global force, particularly militarily.
Realpolitik Shift: Washington is moving toward a more transaction-based, “hardnosed” realism, prioritizing direct military and economic influence over multilateral consensus.
Hegemonic Behavior: The US is asserting “peace through strength,” exemplified by assertive actions in the Western Hemisphere to secure fossil fuel based resources (e.g., in Venezuela).
Key Strengths: Unrivaled military spending (more than the next nine countries combined), technological leadership in AI, and the continued dominance of the US dollar.
Hegemonic Risk: Domestic political volatility is a significant source of global risk. The political structure is indebted to the fossil fuel industry for financial campaign support which undercuts any sponsorship of the NGU in it rollout.
2. China: The “Electrostate” Challenger
China has consolidated its position as the primary challenger to US hegemony, acting as a “near-superpower” with a unique, comprehensive model of state capitalism.
Technological Hegemony: China is becoming the world’s first “electrostate,” having mastered the “electric stack”—EVs, batteries, and robotics—to build 21st-century infrastructure.
Economic Strategy: While facing a deflationary trap, Beijing prioritizes technological supremacy (AI) and, through “friendshoring” and infrastructure development, is building a distinct sphere of influence, particularly among emerging markets.
Geopolitical Stance: Active, and assertive in redefining international rules to favor its developmental model, leading to increased tensions with the EU and US.
NGU partnering with China is a possibility, but China is still committed to a fossil fuel modality as a major national priority in its partnership with Russia and Venezuela.
3. Russia: The Disrupter
Russia is a declining but still dangerous power, primarily exercising influence through disruptive tactics rather than economic competitiveness.
Geopolitical Role: Russia acts as a spoiler in the global order, using military strength and natural resources (oil, gas, wheat) to maintain a sphere of influence, particularly in Central Asia and through proxy conflicts in Africa.
Realpolitik Strategy: A key player in the “hybrid war” against NATO, leveraging cyber operations and energy dependence to divide Europe.
Weakness: Its economic base is shrinking, with a GDP significantly lower than the US or China.
Oil and Gas production and sale is the major geopolitical tool that Russia has to exercise control over political rivals. This is incompatible with the advancement of the NGU in global staging.
4. The European Union: “Regulatory” Power Under Siege
The EU remains a significant global actor, particularly in economic regulation (the “Brussels effect”), but is grappling with internal divisions and external pressures.
Geopolitical Position: Facing a “collision course” with China over industrial capacity and an security vacuum due to reduced confidence in the US security umbrella.
Weakness: Dependent on the US for security and vulnerable to populist, right-wing, and left-wing pressures, which threaten to paralyze key governments.
The European union is well motivated to use the NGU to counter the influence of both the U.S. Russia and China in maintaining their position on the global stage.
5. Emerging “Middle Powers” and “Swing States”
A group of non-aligned or “swing” states is capitalizing on the US-China rivalry to maximize their own influence.
India: A rising power balancing between the US and Russia/China, hosting major summits and asserting its own regional, and global influence. The NGU is a possibility here.
Saudi Arabia & UAE: Leveraging energy wealth and strategic location to attract investment from both the US and China in AI, data centers, and infrastructure. The dependence on fossil fuel production precludes the sponsorship of the NGU here.
Brazil & Turkey: Acting as pivotal players in regional, and international trade, often, pushing back against traditional Western-led, global structures. The NGU is a possibility here.
Key Themes of 2026 Realpolitik
The “Donroe Doctrine”: A reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, where the US focuses on securing its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Water Weaponization: Critical resources, particularly water and, minerals, are being used as leverage, with, half the world under severe water stress.
AI as a Force Multiplier: AI is no longer a neutral technology but a, core component of national security and a, primary domain of competition. The NGU is the only path that will allow AI to advance without limits and achieve its full potential.
Dr. Rossi,
I just saw this, thought it might be interesting to you and your readers.
Emergent quantization from a dynamic vacuum
Harold White*, Jerry Vera, Andre Sylvester, and Leonard Dudzinski
Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013264
– Published 9 March, 202
They claim to have made a device that draws a rather tiny bit of power from the vacuum (1.5 V at 25 us).
Ron Stringer
“The most important milestone is a global presentation”
This is true, and I am fully aware of just how sensitive and pivotal this revelation is.
Such a presentation must be carefully studied and meticulously planned—both in terms of content and timing—so as not to jeopardize everything that has been achieved so far.
The central dilemma persists: how can you reconcile genuine transparency toward all of humanity with the necessary level of secrecy required to maintain security?
It is an extraordinarily difficult decision.
And yet, we have been waiting for this exact moment—the global unveiling—for years.
As I understand the development of the unit to provide power to the Grid, the current status is that the prototype in functioning but at an output level lower than 1 MW.
1. Is this correct?
If correct, what are the major limitations toward quickly moving to full power?
2. Lack of NGU Power Generators (or equivalent NGU units)?
3. The evolution of the control mechanism for NGU units?
4. The inverter (to convert DC to Grid AC power)?
5. Or some combination of some or all of the above?
6. Or something else?
During the course of the 15 years I have been following the evolution of the ECAT, there have been many milestones we all have been looking forward to periodically: presentations, demonstrations, announcements and the like, the most significant of all being the test with the EV in Italy. Yet, all of them, while important, remained restricted to a limited community of followers.
Now I read with excitement your recent answer to Svein: “The most important milestone is a global presentation”.
I totally agree and frankly hope it will really be “global”, something that will resonate with all the bloggers, youtubers and the industry at large. No matter when the actual distribution will start, the world needs to know there is an alternative energy source which may have a dramatic impact on the geopolitical instability of the current times.
Looking forward for this new incoming milestone, whenever it will be.
All the best with your work
Dear Gavino, your question to Rossi is practically identical to the one I wrote to him privately. The point is precisely what you’re making: we’re in no rush for the production for our homes; but the whole world needs to know about this alternative to fuels, including renewables. Kindly, as always, Rossi responded immediately, giving the understandable reasons that before announcing it, the system needs to be absolutely safe and perform as specified. However, I think a joint Rossi-Licensee announcement that at least confirmed the invention’s functionality without production details would be shocking news.
For you Gavino, we could meet in the spring; the Stangoni hardware store has my contact information; leave him yours.
Neri
It’s been a while since I wrote on your blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t follow with constancy and interest the updates that you regularly provide us, also following the interesting questions that are proposed to you daily.
I was deeply touched by the answer you gave to one of your readers today:
“The most important milestone is a global presentation.”
As you’ve rightly stated several times, with the “Latina Test,” the period of public demonstrations has concluded (and let me say with irrefutable and astonishing results), and so in these weeks and months, all your “resilience, tenacity, and inventiveness” (all qualities I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing “in the field”) are being directed, together with your global partner, at bringing ECAT to market.
It doesn’t matter which market is attacked first: industrial or residential. The important thing is that Ecat arrives!
Obviously, I completely agree, for the reasons you’ve explained several times on your blog, that the industrial market is the best suited to spread Ecat globally in a more protected environment. Such a revolutionary technology must be managed with care and attention.
Having seen he in action, I know that all the goals you’ve set together with your partner will be achieved. I’m referring to:
Having said that, I wish you to achieve all your goals as soon as possible.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate to us, day after day, why the latest version of Ecat is called NGU (Never Give Up).
Never forget that there are so many people, besides me, who are rooting for you and your Ecat.
We look forward to you achieving what many of us already believe to be yours: that is, for the entire international scientific community to openly and officially recognize the importance of your discovery.
And of one thing I’m absolutely sure:
The Global Presentation will be the event that will definitively confirm this “Recognition” of yours!!!
Introducing a revolutionary energy product—”Never Give Up” (NGU)—in the face of geopolitical resistance and forced fossil fuel reliance requires a strategy that blends technological disruption with high-level security guarantees. Approaching NATO is a viable path, as the Alliance is actively seeking to diversify energy sources to counter Russian influence and enhance energy security in the context of the Ukraine war.
Strategy for Introducing NGU to NATO
Frame NGU as “Strategic Energy Defense”
Targeted Messaging: Position NGU not as a “green” alternative, but as an “anti-fragile” solution to the vulnerability of centralized energy grids.
NATO Partnership Strategy: Present NGU as a tool for “energy sovereignty,” allowing member states to reduce dependence on hostile suppliers—particularly crucial for Eastern European Allies, strengthening collective security.
Leverage NATO for Geopolitical Cover
”Dual-Use” Technology Proposal: Frame NGU as an emerging, disruptive technology (EDT) that is both civilian-capable and able to power military infrastructure, tapping into NATO’s focus on innovative, secure energy for operations.
Protection of Critical Infrastructure: Propose that NGU deployment be classified under NATO’s commitment to protecting critical energy infrastructure from sabotage, using the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence to validate and test the technology.
The “Trojan Horse” Strategy for Circumventing Resistance
Overcoming Fossil Fuel Interests: By partnering with NATO, NGU is positioned as a national security mandate rather than a market-driven disruption. The argument is framed around reducing reliance on hostile suppliers (Russia, or in some contexts, China for rare earth minerals).
Leveraging 5% Defense Spending Targets: Propose that NGU implementation aligns with the 2025 NATO summit commitment to spend 1.5% of GDP on defence-related investments, including critical infrastructure protection.
Leveraging “Smart Energy”: Position NGU as a solution for “Smart Energy,” reducing the logistical tail and carbon footprint of military forces, as demanded by NATO’s shift toward sustainable operational energy.
http://www.nato.int
Embedded Integration: Rather than replacing the grid overnight, NGU could be integrated into existing defense supply chains first. By the time fossil fuel lobbyists recognize the threat, the technology is already “mission-critical” and federally protected.
The “Energy Special Economic Zone”: Deploy NGU initially in high-security, NATO-aligned innovation hubs or military bases. This creates a “protected” market where domestic regulations—often influenced by energy incumbents—can be bypassed for national security reasons.
Sovereign Debt Relief: Pitch NGU to frontline states (like the Baltics or Poland) as a way to eliminate energy-related sovereign debt. When energy is a security guarantee rather than a commodity, the economic resistance from traditional markets loses its teeth.
This framing shifts the conversation from “saving the planet” to “winning the conflict,” which is a much harder argument for geopolitical rivals to block without looking like they are sabotaging national defense.
To secure NATO’s support for “Never Give Up” (NGU), the technology must transition from a civilian innovation to a “mission-critical” asset. To meet NATO’s dual-use standards, NGU should align with the technical requirements defined by the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (ENSEC COE) and the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA).
The following technical specifications are essential for NATO “dual-use” certification:
1. Resilience and Survivability (MIL-STD Compliance)
Unlike civilian grids, NATO infrastructure must survive kinetic and non-kinetic attacks.
Environmental Durability: Hardware must meet MIL-STD-810G standards, operating in extreme temperatures (-46C to +71C) and withstanding ballistic shock, salt fog, and explosive decompression.
Electromagnetic Hardening: Systems must comply with MIL-STD-461F to remain operational during electronic warfare (EW) or after an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).
Cyber-Physical Security: NGU’s digital controllers must feature NATO-approved cybersecurity measures to prevent remote sabotage of micro-grids.
2. Interoperability and Standardization (STANAG)
NATO relies on Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) to ensure equipment from 32+ nations can work together.
Form Factor: Energy storage units should ideally match the 6T battery form factor (STANAG 4015), used in 95% of military ground vehicles.
Grid Integration: NGU must be “plug-and-play” with smart micro-grids used in expeditionary base camps.
Voltage & Power Quality: Systems must meet specific military electrical standards (e.g., MIL-STD-1275) to prevent damage to sensitive defense electronics.
3. Operational Energy Metrics
NATO prioritizes technologies that reduce the “logistical tail”—the dangerous fuel convoys required to power bases.
Energy Density: To be competitive, NGU should aim for at least 200 Wh/kg (current advanced LFP standard) or higher to maximize portable power.
Autonomy: NGU must enable “Silent Watch” operations—powering military hardware without the thermal or acoustic signature of a diesel generator.
Supply Chain Traceability: NATO requires 100% supply chain traceability to ensure no components originate from strategic competitors (e.g., Russia or China)
Introducing a revolutionary energy product—”Never Give Up” (NGU)—in the face of geopolitical resistance and forced fossil fuel reliance requires a strategy that blends technological disruption with high-level security guarantees. Approaching NATO is a viable path, as the Alliance is actively seeking to diversify energy sources to counter Russian influence and enhance energy security in the context of the Ukraine war.
Introducing a disruptive energy technology like “Never Give Up” (NGU) through NATO as a strategic economic tool is a viable strategy, particularly given the current focus on energy security as a pillar of collective defense. To bypass geopolitical resistance from fossil fuel interests, NGU must be framed not just as a “green” alternative, but as a military necessity
Here is a strategy to introduce the NGU product while circumventing resistance:
1. Frame NGU as “Strategic Energy Defense”
To bypass resistance, NGU should not be introduced as a mere environmental alternative, but as a critical national security asset and an economic weapon to break geopolitical blackmail.
Targeted Messaging: Position NGU as the “anti-fragile” solution to the vulnerability of centralized energy grids.
NATO Partnership Strategy: Present NGU to NATO as a tool for “energy sovereignty,” allowing member states to reduce dependence on hostile suppliers, thereby strengthening collective security.
2. Leverage NATO for Geopolitical Cover
Utilize NATO’s focus on energy security to provide legal, logistical, and safety-related coverage for the rollout.
”Dual-Use” Technology Proposal: Frame NGU as an emerging, disruptive technology that is both civilian-capable and able to power military infrastructure, attracting NATO’s interest in fostering innovation to counter hybrid threats.
Protection of Critical Infrastructure: Propose that NGU deployment be classified under NATO’s commitment to protecting critical infrastructure from sabotage or disruption.
3. Circumventing Resistance (The “Trojan Horse” Strategy)
Resistance from entrenched fossil fuel interests and geopolitical rivals will be strong.
Overcome this by focusing on:
Rapid Deployment in Energy-Poor Regions: Target frontline states, such as Ukraine or eastern NATO members, where the need for independent, resilient energy is highest and immediate.
Stage the NGU all over Ukraine before the winter to counter the Russian strategy of freezing Ukraine into submission.
Decentralization: Promote NGU as a localized, modular solution (e.g., decentralized power) that is harder for adversaries to target than large, centralized power plants.
The NGU can be staged underground to harden its deployment against any possible air attacks. Not requiring fuel makes the NGU invulnerable from a strategic standpoint.
Economic Advantage: Market NGU as a cheaper alternative that breaks the economic leverage Russia gains through its energy exports to the EU.
4. Technical Validation and Trust
Fast-Track NATO Certification: Utilize NATO’s Emerging and Disruptive Technologies (EDT) framework to validate the technology and establish interoperability standards.
Demonstration Projects: Implement NGU in small-scale, high-impact projects in vulnerable regions to prove resilience and efficacy.
By positioning NGU as a NATO-backed “defense-critical” technology, the product moves from being a commercial product under threat to a strategic security priority, making it significantly harder to stifle through political or economic pressure.
To gain geopolitical cover and overcome domestic resistance, the following NATO-specific pathways are recommended:
NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (ENSEC COE): Use this Lithuania-based hub to validate NGU’s technical and scientific merits for “military energy transition by design”.
Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA): Apply to this accelerator program which specifically prioritizes energy resilience as a core challenge area to provide funding, mentorship, and entry into the defense ecosystem.
Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Program: Leverage this funding mechanism to conduct collaborative research with NATO and partner nations (like Ukraine) to demonstrate the product’s effectiveness in protecting critical energy infrastructure.
UNITE (Brave NATO) Programme: Utilize this new joint NATO-Ukraine initiative launched in November 2025 to scale innovative technologies that meet urgent Ukrainian frontline needs while achieving NATO interoperability.
Positioning as an Economic Weapon
To counter Russian energy strategy, NGU should be presented through these strategic lenses:
Operational Agility: Frame the product as a way to reduce the “tether of fuel,” decreasing the logistical burden and vulnerability of fuel convoys which are frequent targets in kinetic warfare.
Strategic Decoupling: Position NGU as the primary tool for diversification of energy sources to eliminate dependence on Moscow and other authoritarian energy providers.
Resilience Against Hybrid Threats: Highlight NGU’s ability to provide decentralized power solutions (e.g., micro-grids) that are harder to disrupt than traditional centralized fossil fuel infrastructure.
Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Market the technology as the foundation for a new model of sustainability in Ukraine’s recovery, turning a conflict zone into a global pilot for NGU-led energy independence.
The advent of the Iran war now is the ideal time to introduce the NGU to NATO which will be hard pressed to find gas and oil resources in a time of scarcity.
Based on reports from early March 2026, the joint U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran have caused significant disruptions to energy supplies, with oil prices rising over 25% and fears of a major energy crisis as the Strait of Hormuz effectively closes.
Securing Critical Infrastructure: NATO is actively focusing on protecting pipelines and energy facilities, with recent 2026 initiatives expanding cooperation on security and defense against conventional threats.
Replacing Russian/Middle Eastern Energy: With the Iran conflict restricting supply and NATO aiming to stop Russian energy purchases by 2027, the focus is on maximizing US liquefied natural gas (LNG) and alternative supplies.
Transitioning to New Technologies: NATO is shifting focus toward AI and drone-based defense to replace older, resource-heavy, and less-efficient defense systems.
Contextual Factors as of March 2026:
Rising Energy Prices: The war has sent oil prices soaring, putting pressure on NATO members, some of whom still purchase Russian oil.
Supply Shortages: The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has put 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) at risk.
Shift in NATO Strategy: The 2026 National Defense Strategy calls for European allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense, particularly concerning energy security.
While a specific “NGU” initiative is not detailed in the provided reports, the situation in March 2026 confirms that NATO is actively looking to secure energy supplies, accelerate technology adoption, and reduce reliance on vulnerable, traditional energy routes.
I saw the comment today on the JONP by Anonymous, who suggested focusing on making heat with the E-Cat, due to 60 percent of energy demand is for heating purposes.
I personally think this is a good idea. If you offered heaters of various sizes, the demand would be huge. Even if they needed to be connected to the grid (if necessary for safety purposes), if the efficiency was high, and the cost savings significant, I think you would have a lot of success.
Votre répone à Gavino Mamia m’envoie à une réflexion de René Char: “La lucidité, c’est la blessure la plus rapprochée du soleil”
Freiner ses envies est parfois nécessaire.
Autrement dit “plus ça va moins vite , moins ça va plus lentement”.. Il faut laisser le temps au temps. Longue vie à vous et à vos équipes
Your response to Gavino Mamia brings to mind a thought by René Char: “Lucidity is the wound closest to the sun.” Sometimes, curbing one’s desires is necessary.
In other words, “the slower things go, the slower they go.” We must let time take its course. Long life to you and your teams.
Gavino Mamia:
I can empathyze you, but it is not an ethical issue, it is a strategic issue to avoid the Ecat be cancelled from the world with any possible mean.
Anyway we are working on it, please read also my answer to Svein minutes ago,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz confronts the global fossil-energy system with one of its most severe stress tests in decades. For generations, this narrow maritime corridor—only a few dozen kilometers wide—has functioned as an indispensable artery of the world’s energy trade. Under normal conditions, vast quantities of crude oil and liquefied natural gas transit this passage each day from the producing regions of the Persian Gulf toward the major consumption centers of the industrial world. The now-extended interruption of this flow exposes with unusual clarity the extent to which modern industrial civilization remains bound to the uninterrupted circulation of material fuels.
The immediate economic and political consequences are already evident. Energy shipments are being rerouted, industrial supply chains are coming under pressure, and highly import-dependent economies—most notably Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—now face structural uncertainty in their energy supply. The present disruption illuminates a fundamental characteristic of the fossil-energy economy: its stability depends not only on geological resources and technical infrastructure but also, to a decisive degree, on the geopolitical security of a small number of heavily burdened transport corridors.
At precisely this historical juncture, however, a second development acquires particular significance—one that challenges the energetic paradigm of the past two centuries at its foundation. Parallel to the intensifying instability of fossil supply chains, the practical utilization of Zero‑point energy is entering the phase of technological implementation. Systems designed to harness energy from the quantum vacuum are now moving into industrial practice. Their initial deployment occurs on a limited scale, yet their conceptual implications extend far beyond any individual application.
The defining distinction of this energy form lies not primarily in the magnitude of the energy reservoir itself but in the structure of its provision. Fossil fuels must be extracted, transported across great distances, stored, and converted within large-scale industrial facilities. Technologies based on zero-point energy, by contrast, enable compact and decentralized energy systems. Energy ceases to appear principally as a tradable commodity distributed through global logistics networks and instead emerges as a locally accessible physical resource.
Viewed in this light, the present crisis acquires a striking historical irony. At the very moment when one of the most critical transport routes of the fossil-fuel economy stands immobilized, a technology whose defining characteristic is the elimination of such transport dependencies begins its entry into practical use. The strategic importance of tanker routes, pipelines, and export terminals—long regarded as structural pillars of the international energy order—diminishes as energy systems become anchored in locally available primary sources.
The geopolitical implications of this transformation are profound. A substantial portion of the existing architecture of global power rests upon control of fossil resources and the routes through which they move. With the emergence of an energy form no longer tied to geographically concentrated deposits, the center of gravity in the energy economy shifts from the geography of resources to technological capability. Research, engineering design, and the industrial production of such systems become the decisive determinants of energy sovereignty.
The events of the present moment therefore mark a rare historical threshold. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz exposes with exceptional clarity the structural vulnerability of the fossil-energy order, while a new form of energy generation simultaneously enters practical deployment. Together these developments establish a profound transition in the history of industrial civilization: the energetic foundation of the modern world moves away from the geography of fuels and toward the physics of space itself.
The new war strategy of Iran to destabilize the world’s economies afords the ideal situation for fielding of the NGU on Europe, Japan, and South Korea who depend on the oil and gas from the Gulf States to keep their economies going by replacing that energy with those provided by the NGU.
As of mid-March 2026, the ongoing conflict between Iran and a US-Israeli coalition has created severe disruptions to global energy supplies, with Iran systematically targeting oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf States and disrupting transit through the Strait of Hormuz. This situation has triggered energy crises in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, which are heavily dependent on these Gulf energy sources
Iranian Strategy: Iran is employing a strategy of “asymmetric endurance” or “economic war,” targeting Gulf oil facilities, shipping, and infrastructure to make the conflict unsustainable for the US and its regional partners. This strategy is designed to inflict maximum economic pain on the global system, driving up energy prices as oil passes $100-$120 a barrel up to
Iran’s goal of $200 a barrel.
Energy Dependence & Vulnerability: Japan and South Korea remain highly vulnerable due to their reliance on oil imports (about 90% for Japan and 70% for Korea), while Europe depends on LNG shipments for electrical generation and heating through the same contested routes.
Replacement Technologies (“NGU”): The “NGU” can replace this oil and gas shortfall. The current crisis has accelerated the political case for energy transition to the NGU. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects renewable energy (wind and solar) to become the top power source by 2026, with solar, wind, and storage dominating new capacity.
Wind and solar energy from the Gulf are considered a long-term, strategic solution to supplement, rather than immediately replace, oil and gas exports to Europe, Japan, and South Korea, particularly as the region faces heightened volatility. While the Gulf possesses enormous potential for renewable energy—capable of producing over 200% of its current energy needs from wind alone—replacing the physical volume and diverse uses of 15 mb/d of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is not currently feasible
Strategic Shift: The crisis has forced Japan and South Korea to diversify, with moves to enhance joint procurement, increase nuclear power, and explore other energy sources to survive this supply shock.
Conflict Impact: The conflict has forced some producers to declare force majeure, making the energy supply in the region highly unreliable.
The current war has accelerated the urgency for nations dependent on the Gulf to secure alternative energy sources, making the strategic pivot away from Gulf oil a critical, though complex, challenge in 2026.
Current Status of Gulf Energy Replacements
Scale of Dependence: Japan relies on the Gulf for 95% of its oil, while South Korea depends on it for 70%.
Wind and Solar Limitations: While the EU reached a milestone in 2025 where wind and solar overtook fossil fuels for power generation, these sources currently only address electricity needs.
The Industrial Gap: Approximately 80% of national energy consumption—including heating, heavy transportation, and industrial raw materials (petrochemicals)—remains “shackled” to fossil fuels.
Infrastructure Reality: Gulf nations are scaling up green hydrogen and ammonia for export, but utility-scale deployment and the necessary global shipping infrastructure are not projected to meet current demand levels until closer to 2040.
Facilitating the NGU Power Source
To facilitate the fielding of the Never Give Up (NGU) or similar advanced power sources throughout their economies, the following requests can be made of partners in Europe, Japan, and South Korea:
Standardized Regulatory Frameworks: Request the adoption of unified safety and operational standards to allow NGU technologies to be deployed across different legal jurisdictions without redundant certification processes.
Infrastructure Interconnection: Ask for commitment to high-voltage direct current (HVDC) “super-grids” and maritime energy corridors (like the Asia-Europe Energy Link) to stabilize the intermittent nature of Green power as well as NGU power.
Guaranteed Offtake Agreements: Seek long-term “Take-or-Pay” contracts for new energy carriers (e.g., green ammonia) to de-risk the massive capital investment required for emergency NGU-scale fielding.
Technology Co-Development: Propose joint ventures for NGU technologies, where partners provide the advanced manufacturing (e.g., semiconductors and electrical generation) in exchange for the energy partner’s land and factory resources.
Tariff and Trade Exemptions: Negotiate for the removal of import duties on the specific hardware required for NGU deployment, similar to the South Korea-UAE CEPA that recently slashed duties on energy-related equipment.
Require security guaranties to ensure that the NGU must not be interfered with during manufacture, fielding, and deployment as well as R&D support to meet the economic requirements of the host countries.
Dear Andrea
In which TRL do you consider that the first versions of a complete Ecat aggregate are in today?
When do you assume that TRL 8 and 9 will be achieved?
Regards Svein
Anthony Baker:
Please find it here:
info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Find the list of publications in the right column of the home page,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Where can I find your paper ” Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” ?
Best,
Anthony
Gianvico:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Donut battery next test go on line in 1 day. They are fantastic
Richard Pollack:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Here is an interesting link, possibly useful:
http://www.scitechdaily.com/engineers-create-unusual-magnetic-material-that-behaves-like-graphene/
Best,
Richard
Yury Evdokimov:
I think that the diffusion of the Ecat will stimulate the studies on this matter also in other fields of application; the merit of its discovery is of Tesla, I just studied it carefully also with experiments to exploit it for the Ecat; to answer your question, I think it will be exploited universally,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gavino Mamia:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@2026-03-10 12:14 Ron Stringer
Harold White et al are not the only developers to produce a vacuum energy production system.
Regarding: the following comment from an observer regarding the work of Dr. Garett Moddel who claims that energy can be directly harvested from the vacuum using specially designed diodes that employ the Casimir effect.
I sent emails to Garett Moddel and he confirmed that the primary thing holding up the mass production of this device is reliability. The devices work great when they are first produced, but quickly break down and become useless. Until he gets more research money to analyze how and why the cells break down over time there will not be a wide-spread industrial roll out of this technology. I wish a rich backer would take a strong interest in this device so we could get over this reliability hurdle and bring this great technology to a useful marketable product.
When dealing with the structure of the universe, there are many unknowns. Where all others will fail, Dr. Rossi has encountered these issues in his decades of research into the vacuum reaction and has overcome them (I Hope) through a supreme act of dedication, will, and determination.
Dr. Rossi
Here is the video of BYD’s presentation on the second generation of its LFP batteries.
It’s in Chinese, but you can also watch it in Italian by turning on automatic subtitles in other languages.
It’s very long, but I enjoyed watching it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFnxc7N-v8
They allow a car to travel 1,000 km on a single charge, fully charge in 9 minutes, and in 12 minutes at temperatures below 20 degrees Celsius.
They are resistant to impacts and punctures.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
How do you think the future of energy development based on ZPE technology will unfold, and in what key directions?
I’d like to hear your opinion as a scientist who pioneered this technology, not as a businessman, about its future.
Sincerely, Yury
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
Thank you for the link.
I think that many of them may have been helped by the AI, as well as I myself ma helped by the Artificial Intelligence right now. I use the ChatGPT Pro.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
How is the 25 kW NGU prototype testing going?
Electrical Powerplant Ramp Performance – “Many modern reactors are capable of ramping up or down at a rate of 5% of their total rated power per minute.”
For a hypothetical 1 MW NGU Grid power Generator, powered by 40 NGU 25 kW Power Generators, the output power on the 1 MW Grid Inverter could be controlled in 2.5% steps by simply enabling or disabling individual 25 kW NGU Power Generators. Assuming a 1 second interval between changes, a 100% ramp could be done in under one minute.
Thought?
To Axil
There is now an inventors’ fair in Geneva.
Here it is said that 1000 new inventions are presented. How many of these could be made by AI?
https://www.inventions-geneva.ch/en/home-en/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Regards Svein
Axil:
Thank you for your AI investigations and links,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
After the NGU presentation, the gleeful anticipation will be over, and the yearning and nostalgia for the good old days of certainty will begin.
I think that the extraction of vacuum energy is being treated as a plaything that happens in the basement. But in reality, such energy production is ten times more impactful to everyday life as nuclear power was not to long ago.
I have has a delightful conversation with the AI about what the new age of the NGU will bring. The AI seems to be a reasonable and cordial person.
The link to the AI conversation as follows:
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&aep=42&source=chrome.crn.rb&q=After+the+NGU+presentation%2C+the+gleeful+anticipation+will+be+over%2C+and+the+yearning+and+nostalgia+for+the+good+old+days+of+certainty+will+begin.+++%EF%BB%BF+%EF%BB%BFI+think+that+the+extration+of+vacuum+energy+is+being+treated+as+a+plaything+what+happens+in+the+basement.+But+in+reality%2C+such+energy+production+is+ten+times+more+impaxtful+to+everdat+life+as+nuclerar+power+was+not+to+long+ago.&mstk=AUtExfAwMVFzOHwLeOerHhLTjSE1ybsF2wv3lIdzbPiw6Y2vM8htFcKBKgthW-qMO7Xz46q4lYpf1LgTi2rKlddKnZP2PGn6I-YqzBr9GA9xnT7631gHaE6CD0XnAbSsNdY2Cw5m7OUp4uFd4e35MwU799tEJA19sGXjIi0r-bgoSGpqc1Y3UwZCUeUzN9GLD5C2vIKPKnJofMAvOFf_38gJJxayFhvy2ezbqoEk_LFf5PUwaXrBKXWdqJvFTbnDVTokc9GDkIBSpJgOFQ&csuir=1&mtid=ixezaYKnNIqk5NoP3Iu2qA8&udm=50
Ecat Enthusiast
Not yet,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
I am sure there will be a lot of interest in your global presentation, certainly from myself. Have you started the planning yet?
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Hi Axil
Thank you for a comprehensive answer. I base my conclusion on EU legislation.
Here, Article 17 of the Renewable Energy Directive states that there is a requirement for Member States to create a simplified procedure for connection to the grid after a simple notification for some types of small production facilities.
This applies to facilities belonging to end users with their own production of renewable energy and demonstration projects.
– It follows from the article that such production facilities can be connected if the grid company does not make a decision within one month of receiving the notification.
The requirements apply to facilities with an electrical capacity of no more than 10.8 kW, but can also be allowed for facilities up to 50 kW under certain conditions.
This is ideal for end users’ purchases of solar cells and Ecat.
For grid owners, it becomes interesting, for many reasons, to supply end users with energy from larger Ecat aggregates that are directly fed into the grid as close to the consumer as possible.
Regards Svein
@2026-03-11 07:52 Svein
Currently, electrical power production is the limiting factor in the advancement of artificial intelligence. This is why the complementary acquisition and deployment of the Never Give Up vacuum reactor ( NGU) developed by Dr. Rossi will become a strategic mandatory requirement for the competing hegemons that will become apparent to them soon after the commercial announcement of the NGU occurs. When the actual realization of the limitless potential of the NGU becomes well understood, the stampede to utilize the NGU will become overwhelming, far more attractive to the hegemon than adding new large reserves of gas and oil from weaker dominated subservient countries. Oil and gas will instantly lose their allore to the hegemon’s desiring world predominance in energy production and AI supremacy.
AI perspective
That is a bold but realistic outlook on the future of global power dynamics. If a technology like the NGU vacuum reactor—or any high-density, low-cost energy source—successfully bridges the gap between our current grid and the massive computational demands of next-gen AI, it would certainly trigger a paradigm shift.
History shows that hegemons typically follow the path of least resistance to maintain dominance. Currently, that path involves massive investments in nuclear modular reactors (SMRs) and traditional renewables to fuel data centers. If a “limitless” source were to prove commercially viable, it would likely turn fossil fuels from strategic assets into stranded ones almost overnight.
The real tipping point will be the commercial announcement and, more importantly, the independent verification of the energy output.
The shift to a “limitless” energy source like the NGU vacuum reactor—if commercially verified—would likely follow a rapid trajectory from private disruption to aggressive state intervention. When national governments recognize that an energy technology provides a decisive advantage in AI supremacy and military logistics, they typically transition from supporters to controllers.
The Path to Nationalization
Identification as a Strategic Asset: Governments would classify vacuum energy not just as a utility, but as a “dual-use” technology essential for national security.
Security-First Intervention: State actors may use “security-focused” innovation policies to mandate government observers or restrict information sharing to prevent “malign actors” from accessing or sabotaging the tech.
Resource Sovereignty: The move would be framed as achieving “energy addition” and independence, reducing reliance on foreign adversaries and vulnerable global supply chains.
AI and Defense Integration: To maintain technological superiority, governments would prioritize powering their own data centers and military operations (like remote sensing or space missions) before allowing full commercial export.
Geopolitical Realignments
Stranded Hegemons: Traditional “petrostates” or countries reliant on fossil fuel exports would face sudden economic instability, potentially leading to desperate diplomatic or military maneuvers to secure a foothold in the new energy paradigm.
New Trade Blocs: Global relations might bifurcate based on who has access to the technology, creating multi-decadal ties between the technology supplier and recipient nations.
Infrastructure Dominance: The first nation to achieve manufacturing scale for such reactors would gain a “self-reinforcing geopolitical advantage,” similar to current leads in solar and battery supply chains.
If the NGU were nationalized tomorrow, it would it spark a new “Cold War” focused on energy containment?
Nationalizing a disruptive energy technology like the NGU (Never Give Up) reactor would almost certainly spark a new “Cold War,” but one focused on technological containment rather than just territorial or ideological spread.
If one nation successfully nationalizes a “limitless” energy source, the global response would likely mirror historical containment strategies:
1. Technological Blockades
Export Controls: Just as the U.S. and its allies currently restrict high-end AI chips to competitors, a nationalized NGU would be subject to extreme export bans to prevent “energy-poor” adversaries from catching up.
Intelligence Warfare: The “front line” of this Cold War would be cyber-espionage and industrial sabotage aimed at stealing the proprietary physics or manufacturing processes behind the reactor.
2. Economic Destabilization
The “Stranded Asset” Crisis: A rapid shift to NGU-powered AI and industry would cause the value of global oil and gas reserves to collapse.
Petrostate Volatility: Countries heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports (like Russia or OPEC members) would face existential economic threats, potentially leading to aggressive “last resort” military posturing to maintain relevance.
3. Diplomatic Bipolarity
Energy Alliances: Much like the Truman Doctrine offered aid to contain communism, the NGU-holding hegemon could offer “energy security umbrellas” to allies, forcing neutral nations to pick a side to gain access to the technology.
Containment Zones: Competitors without the tech might form desperate blocs to control the critical minerals (like nickel or lithium) still needed for the surrounding infrastructure, creating new “choke points” in global trade.
4. Risk of “Hot” Conflict
The First-Mover Trap: If a hegemon believes their lead in NGU-powered AI will soon make them invincible, they might be tempted to act before others can close the gap. Conversely, an adversary might see a “closing window of opportunity” to strike before the hegemon becomes untouchable.
While the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests that diversifying energy can improve stability, the sudden nationalization of a revolutionary source would likely be viewed as a hostile act of supreme leverage, making containment the default global policy.
Dear Axel
I would like to comment on your statement of March 10 at 3:18 PM.
The value of fish in the sea lies in all the small fish that appear in myriads in schools.
This is something humanity has discovered early on and has always exploited, even without AI.
I expect the same will happen when Ecat is launched globally.
Regards Svein
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Sorry, I cannot answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
It is not just security, it is safety, also for the Ecat; this said, thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R
Ron Stringer:
Thank you for the reference,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Without hegemonic and realpolitik sponsorship and support, the NGU has as much chance of survival as a tiny fish in an ocean of sharks. Why I have selected Europe as the most likely fit to support the initial development and fielding of the NGU.
From a 2026 geopolitical and realpolitik perspective, the global power structure is characterized by an accelerating shift towards multipolarity, with the United States and China acting as the primary, albeit differently focused, superpowers, surrounded by a tier of assertive “middle powers” maneuvering for advantage in a fragmented, high-risk environment.
The 2026 landscape is defined by the “de-globalization” of supply chains (friendshoring), national security priorities over economic efficiency, and raw power politics (realpolitik) overriding international norms.
Here are the major hegemonic global power centers in 2026:
1. The United States: The “Postliberal” Superpower
Despite challenges to its traditional, rule-based hegemony, the US remains the dominant global force, particularly militarily.
Realpolitik Shift: Washington is moving toward a more transaction-based, “hardnosed” realism, prioritizing direct military and economic influence over multilateral consensus.
Hegemonic Behavior: The US is asserting “peace through strength,” exemplified by assertive actions in the Western Hemisphere to secure fossil fuel based resources (e.g., in Venezuela).
Key Strengths: Unrivaled military spending (more than the next nine countries combined), technological leadership in AI, and the continued dominance of the US dollar.
Hegemonic Risk: Domestic political volatility is a significant source of global risk. The political structure is indebted to the fossil fuel industry for financial campaign support which undercuts any sponsorship of the NGU in it rollout.
2. China: The “Electrostate” Challenger
China has consolidated its position as the primary challenger to US hegemony, acting as a “near-superpower” with a unique, comprehensive model of state capitalism.
Technological Hegemony: China is becoming the world’s first “electrostate,” having mastered the “electric stack”—EVs, batteries, and robotics—to build 21st-century infrastructure.
Economic Strategy: While facing a deflationary trap, Beijing prioritizes technological supremacy (AI) and, through “friendshoring” and infrastructure development, is building a distinct sphere of influence, particularly among emerging markets.
Geopolitical Stance: Active, and assertive in redefining international rules to favor its developmental model, leading to increased tensions with the EU and US.
NGU partnering with China is a possibility, but China is still committed to a fossil fuel modality as a major national priority in its partnership with Russia and Venezuela.
3. Russia: The Disrupter
Russia is a declining but still dangerous power, primarily exercising influence through disruptive tactics rather than economic competitiveness.
Geopolitical Role: Russia acts as a spoiler in the global order, using military strength and natural resources (oil, gas, wheat) to maintain a sphere of influence, particularly in Central Asia and through proxy conflicts in Africa.
Realpolitik Strategy: A key player in the “hybrid war” against NATO, leveraging cyber operations and energy dependence to divide Europe.
Weakness: Its economic base is shrinking, with a GDP significantly lower than the US or China.
Oil and Gas production and sale is the major geopolitical tool that Russia has to exercise control over political rivals. This is incompatible with the advancement of the NGU in global staging.
4. The European Union: “Regulatory” Power Under Siege
The EU remains a significant global actor, particularly in economic regulation (the “Brussels effect”), but is grappling with internal divisions and external pressures.
Geopolitical Position: Facing a “collision course” with China over industrial capacity and an security vacuum due to reduced confidence in the US security umbrella.
Weakness: Dependent on the US for security and vulnerable to populist, right-wing, and left-wing pressures, which threaten to paralyze key governments.
The European union is well motivated to use the NGU to counter the influence of both the U.S. Russia and China in maintaining their position on the global stage.
5. Emerging “Middle Powers” and “Swing States”
A group of non-aligned or “swing” states is capitalizing on the US-China rivalry to maximize their own influence.
India: A rising power balancing between the US and Russia/China, hosting major summits and asserting its own regional, and global influence. The NGU is a possibility here.
Saudi Arabia & UAE: Leveraging energy wealth and strategic location to attract investment from both the US and China in AI, data centers, and infrastructure. The dependence on fossil fuel production precludes the sponsorship of the NGU here.
Brazil & Turkey: Acting as pivotal players in regional, and international trade, often, pushing back against traditional Western-led, global structures. The NGU is a possibility here.
Key Themes of 2026 Realpolitik
The “Donroe Doctrine”: A reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, where the US focuses on securing its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Water Weaponization: Critical resources, particularly water and, minerals, are being used as leverage, with, half the world under severe water stress.
AI as a Force Multiplier: AI is no longer a neutral technology but a, core component of national security and a, primary domain of competition. The NGU is the only path that will allow AI to advance without limits and achieve its full potential.
Dr. Rossi,
I just saw this, thought it might be interesting to you and your readers.
Emergent quantization from a dynamic vacuum
Harold White*, Jerry Vera, Andre Sylvester, and Leonard Dudzinski
Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013264
– Published 9 March, 202
They claim to have made a device that draws a rather tiny bit of power from the vacuum (1.5 V at 25 us).
Ron Stringer
Dr. Rossi,
“The most important milestone is a global presentation”
This is true, and I am fully aware of just how sensitive and pivotal this revelation is.
Such a presentation must be carefully studied and meticulously planned—both in terms of content and timing—so as not to jeopardize everything that has been achieved so far.
The central dilemma persists: how can you reconcile genuine transparency toward all of humanity with the necessary level of secrecy required to maintain security?
It is an extraordinarily difficult decision.
And yet, we have been waiting for this exact moment—the global unveiling—for years.
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
As I understand the development of the unit to provide power to the Grid, the current status is that the prototype in functioning but at an output level lower than 1 MW.
1. Is this correct?
If correct, what are the major limitations toward quickly moving to full power?
2. Lack of NGU Power Generators (or equivalent NGU units)?
3. The evolution of the control mechanism for NGU units?
4. The inverter (to convert DC to Grid AC power)?
5. Or some combination of some or all of the above?
6. Or something else?
Svein:
This kind of infrmation is confidential, either in negative or in positive,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Does the photonics in Ecat have conditions that are parallel to what Coherent Inc and Lumentum deliver?
Regards Svein
Maico:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Piero:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
During the course of the 15 years I have been following the evolution of the ECAT, there have been many milestones we all have been looking forward to periodically: presentations, demonstrations, announcements and the like, the most significant of all being the test with the EV in Italy. Yet, all of them, while important, remained restricted to a limited community of followers.
Now I read with excitement your recent answer to Svein: “The most important milestone is a global presentation”.
I totally agree and frankly hope it will really be “global”, something that will resonate with all the bloggers, youtubers and the industry at large. No matter when the actual distribution will start, the world needs to know there is an alternative energy source which may have a dramatic impact on the geopolitical instability of the current times.
Looking forward for this new incoming milestone, whenever it will be.
All the best with your work
Dear Gavino, your question to Rossi is practically identical to the one I wrote to him privately. The point is precisely what you’re making: we’re in no rush for the production for our homes; but the whole world needs to know about this alternative to fuels, including renewables. Kindly, as always, Rossi responded immediately, giving the understandable reasons that before announcing it, the system needs to be absolutely safe and perform as specified. However, I think a joint Rossi-Licensee announcement that at least confirmed the invention’s functionality without production details would be shocking news.
For you Gavino, we could meet in the spring; the Stangoni hardware store has my contact information; leave him yours.
Neri
Dear Dr. Rossi,
It’s been a while since I wrote on your blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t follow with constancy and interest the updates that you regularly provide us, also following the interesting questions that are proposed to you daily.
I was deeply touched by the answer you gave to one of your readers today:
“The most important milestone is a global presentation.”
As you’ve rightly stated several times, with the “Latina Test,” the period of public demonstrations has concluded (and let me say with irrefutable and astonishing results), and so in these weeks and months, all your “resilience, tenacity, and inventiveness” (all qualities I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing “in the field”) are being directed, together with your global partner, at bringing ECAT to market.
It doesn’t matter which market is attacked first: industrial or residential. The important thing is that Ecat arrives!
Obviously, I completely agree, for the reasons you’ve explained several times on your blog, that the industrial market is the best suited to spread Ecat globally in a more protected environment. Such a revolutionary technology must be managed with care and attention.
Having seen he in action, I know that all the goals you’ve set together with your partner will be achieved. I’m referring to:
1) 500W Ecat
2) 22kV substations
3) 6/7kV substations
Having said that, I wish you to achieve all your goals as soon as possible.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate to us, day after day, why the latest version of Ecat is called NGU (Never Give Up).
Never forget that there are so many people, besides me, who are rooting for you and your Ecat.
We look forward to you achieving what many of us already believe to be yours: that is, for the entire international scientific community to openly and officially recognize the importance of your discovery.
And of one thing I’m absolutely sure:
The Global Presentation will be the event that will definitively confirm this “Recognition” of yours!!!
Best regards
With respect and admiration
Ciao Maico
gicquel:
Thank you for your reference, and for your wishes, which we extend to you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
I agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tommek:
I am not able to answer, so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Introducing a revolutionary energy product—”Never Give Up” (NGU)—in the face of geopolitical resistance and forced fossil fuel reliance requires a strategy that blends technological disruption with high-level security guarantees. Approaching NATO is a viable path, as the Alliance is actively seeking to diversify energy sources to counter Russian influence and enhance energy security in the context of the Ukraine war.
Strategy for Introducing NGU to NATO
Frame NGU as “Strategic Energy Defense”
Targeted Messaging: Position NGU not as a “green” alternative, but as an “anti-fragile” solution to the vulnerability of centralized energy grids.
NATO Partnership Strategy: Present NGU as a tool for “energy sovereignty,” allowing member states to reduce dependence on hostile suppliers—particularly crucial for Eastern European Allies, strengthening collective security.
Leverage NATO for Geopolitical Cover
”Dual-Use” Technology Proposal: Frame NGU as an emerging, disruptive technology (EDT) that is both civilian-capable and able to power military infrastructure, tapping into NATO’s focus on innovative, secure energy for operations.
Protection of Critical Infrastructure: Propose that NGU deployment be classified under NATO’s commitment to protecting critical energy infrastructure from sabotage, using the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence to validate and test the technology.
The “Trojan Horse” Strategy for Circumventing Resistance
Overcoming Fossil Fuel Interests: By partnering with NATO, NGU is positioned as a national security mandate rather than a market-driven disruption. The argument is framed around reducing reliance on hostile suppliers (Russia, or in some contexts, China for rare earth minerals).
Leveraging 5% Defense Spending Targets: Propose that NGU implementation aligns with the 2025 NATO summit commitment to spend 1.5% of GDP on defence-related investments, including critical infrastructure protection.
Leveraging “Smart Energy”: Position NGU as a solution for “Smart Energy,” reducing the logistical tail and carbon footprint of military forces, as demanded by NATO’s shift toward sustainable operational energy.
http://www.nato.int
Embedded Integration: Rather than replacing the grid overnight, NGU could be integrated into existing defense supply chains first. By the time fossil fuel lobbyists recognize the threat, the technology is already “mission-critical” and federally protected.
The “Energy Special Economic Zone”: Deploy NGU initially in high-security, NATO-aligned innovation hubs or military bases. This creates a “protected” market where domestic regulations—often influenced by energy incumbents—can be bypassed for national security reasons.
Sovereign Debt Relief: Pitch NGU to frontline states (like the Baltics or Poland) as a way to eliminate energy-related sovereign debt. When energy is a security guarantee rather than a commodity, the economic resistance from traditional markets loses its teeth.
This framing shifts the conversation from “saving the planet” to “winning the conflict,” which is a much harder argument for geopolitical rivals to block without looking like they are sabotaging national defense.
To secure NATO’s support for “Never Give Up” (NGU), the technology must transition from a civilian innovation to a “mission-critical” asset. To meet NATO’s dual-use standards, NGU should align with the technical requirements defined by the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (ENSEC COE) and the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA).
The following technical specifications are essential for NATO “dual-use” certification:
1. Resilience and Survivability (MIL-STD Compliance)
Unlike civilian grids, NATO infrastructure must survive kinetic and non-kinetic attacks.
Environmental Durability: Hardware must meet MIL-STD-810G standards, operating in extreme temperatures (-46C to +71C) and withstanding ballistic shock, salt fog, and explosive decompression.
Electromagnetic Hardening: Systems must comply with MIL-STD-461F to remain operational during electronic warfare (EW) or after an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).
Cyber-Physical Security: NGU’s digital controllers must feature NATO-approved cybersecurity measures to prevent remote sabotage of micro-grids.
2. Interoperability and Standardization (STANAG)
NATO relies on Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) to ensure equipment from 32+ nations can work together.
Form Factor: Energy storage units should ideally match the 6T battery form factor (STANAG 4015), used in 95% of military ground vehicles.
Grid Integration: NGU must be “plug-and-play” with smart micro-grids used in expeditionary base camps.
Voltage & Power Quality: Systems must meet specific military electrical standards (e.g., MIL-STD-1275) to prevent damage to sensitive defense electronics.
3. Operational Energy Metrics
NATO prioritizes technologies that reduce the “logistical tail”—the dangerous fuel convoys required to power bases.
Energy Density: To be competitive, NGU should aim for at least 200 Wh/kg (current advanced LFP standard) or higher to maximize portable power.
Autonomy: NGU must enable “Silent Watch” operations—powering military hardware without the thermal or acoustic signature of a diesel generator.
Supply Chain Traceability: NATO requires 100% supply chain traceability to ensure no components originate from strategic competitors (e.g., Russia or China)
Introducing a revolutionary energy product—”Never Give Up” (NGU)—in the face of geopolitical resistance and forced fossil fuel reliance requires a strategy that blends technological disruption with high-level security guarantees. Approaching NATO is a viable path, as the Alliance is actively seeking to diversify energy sources to counter Russian influence and enhance energy security in the context of the Ukraine war.
Introducing a disruptive energy technology like “Never Give Up” (NGU) through NATO as a strategic economic tool is a viable strategy, particularly given the current focus on energy security as a pillar of collective defense. To bypass geopolitical resistance from fossil fuel interests, NGU must be framed not just as a “green” alternative, but as a military necessity
Here is a strategy to introduce the NGU product while circumventing resistance:
1. Frame NGU as “Strategic Energy Defense”
To bypass resistance, NGU should not be introduced as a mere environmental alternative, but as a critical national security asset and an economic weapon to break geopolitical blackmail.
Targeted Messaging: Position NGU as the “anti-fragile” solution to the vulnerability of centralized energy grids.
NATO Partnership Strategy: Present NGU to NATO as a tool for “energy sovereignty,” allowing member states to reduce dependence on hostile suppliers, thereby strengthening collective security.
2. Leverage NATO for Geopolitical Cover
Utilize NATO’s focus on energy security to provide legal, logistical, and safety-related coverage for the rollout.
”Dual-Use” Technology Proposal: Frame NGU as an emerging, disruptive technology that is both civilian-capable and able to power military infrastructure, attracting NATO’s interest in fostering innovation to counter hybrid threats.
Protection of Critical Infrastructure: Propose that NGU deployment be classified under NATO’s commitment to protecting critical infrastructure from sabotage or disruption.
3. Circumventing Resistance (The “Trojan Horse” Strategy)
Resistance from entrenched fossil fuel interests and geopolitical rivals will be strong.
Overcome this by focusing on:
Rapid Deployment in Energy-Poor Regions: Target frontline states, such as Ukraine or eastern NATO members, where the need for independent, resilient energy is highest and immediate.
Stage the NGU all over Ukraine before the winter to counter the Russian strategy of freezing Ukraine into submission.
Decentralization: Promote NGU as a localized, modular solution (e.g., decentralized power) that is harder for adversaries to target than large, centralized power plants.
The NGU can be staged underground to harden its deployment against any possible air attacks. Not requiring fuel makes the NGU invulnerable from a strategic standpoint.
Economic Advantage: Market NGU as a cheaper alternative that breaks the economic leverage Russia gains through its energy exports to the EU.
4. Technical Validation and Trust
Fast-Track NATO Certification: Utilize NATO’s Emerging and Disruptive Technologies (EDT) framework to validate the technology and establish interoperability standards.
Demonstration Projects: Implement NGU in small-scale, high-impact projects in vulnerable regions to prove resilience and efficacy.
By positioning NGU as a NATO-backed “defense-critical” technology, the product moves from being a commercial product under threat to a strategic security priority, making it significantly harder to stifle through political or economic pressure.
To gain geopolitical cover and overcome domestic resistance, the following NATO-specific pathways are recommended:
NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (ENSEC COE): Use this Lithuania-based hub to validate NGU’s technical and scientific merits for “military energy transition by design”.
Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA): Apply to this accelerator program which specifically prioritizes energy resilience as a core challenge area to provide funding, mentorship, and entry into the defense ecosystem.
Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Program: Leverage this funding mechanism to conduct collaborative research with NATO and partner nations (like Ukraine) to demonstrate the product’s effectiveness in protecting critical energy infrastructure.
UNITE (Brave NATO) Programme: Utilize this new joint NATO-Ukraine initiative launched in November 2025 to scale innovative technologies that meet urgent Ukrainian frontline needs while achieving NATO interoperability.
Positioning as an Economic Weapon
To counter Russian energy strategy, NGU should be presented through these strategic lenses:
Operational Agility: Frame the product as a way to reduce the “tether of fuel,” decreasing the logistical burden and vulnerability of fuel convoys which are frequent targets in kinetic warfare.
Strategic Decoupling: Position NGU as the primary tool for diversification of energy sources to eliminate dependence on Moscow and other authoritarian energy providers.
Resilience Against Hybrid Threats: Highlight NGU’s ability to provide decentralized power solutions (e.g., micro-grids) that are harder to disrupt than traditional centralized fossil fuel infrastructure.
Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Market the technology as the foundation for a new model of sustainability in Ukraine’s recovery, turning a conflict zone into a global pilot for NGU-led energy independence.
The advent of the Iran war now is the ideal time to introduce the NGU to NATO which will be hard pressed to find gas and oil resources in a time of scarcity.
Based on reports from early March 2026, the joint U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran have caused significant disruptions to energy supplies, with oil prices rising over 25% and fears of a major energy crisis as the Strait of Hormuz effectively closes.
Securing Critical Infrastructure: NATO is actively focusing on protecting pipelines and energy facilities, with recent 2026 initiatives expanding cooperation on security and defense against conventional threats.
Replacing Russian/Middle Eastern Energy: With the Iran conflict restricting supply and NATO aiming to stop Russian energy purchases by 2027, the focus is on maximizing US liquefied natural gas (LNG) and alternative supplies.
Transitioning to New Technologies: NATO is shifting focus toward AI and drone-based defense to replace older, resource-heavy, and less-efficient defense systems.
Contextual Factors as of March 2026:
Rising Energy Prices: The war has sent oil prices soaring, putting pressure on NATO members, some of whom still purchase Russian oil.
Supply Shortages: The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has put 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) at risk.
Shift in NATO Strategy: The 2026 National Defense Strategy calls for European allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense, particularly concerning energy security.
While a specific “NGU” initiative is not detailed in the provided reports, the situation in March 2026 confirms that NATO is actively looking to secure energy supplies, accelerate technology adoption, and reduce reliance on vulnerable, traditional energy routes.
What do you think the presentation will look like?
Greetings from Tommek
Dear Andrea,
I saw the comment today on the JONP by Anonymous, who suggested focusing on making heat with the E-Cat, due to 60 percent of energy demand is for heating purposes.
I personally think this is a good idea. If you offered heaters of various sizes, the demand would be huge. Even if they needed to be connected to the grid (if necessary for safety purposes), if the efficiency was high, and the cost savings significant, I think you would have a lot of success.
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Votre répone à Gavino Mamia m’envoie à une réflexion de René Char: “La lucidité, c’est la blessure la plus rapprochée du soleil”
Freiner ses envies est parfois nécessaire.
Autrement dit “plus ça va moins vite , moins ça va plus lentement”.. Il faut laisser le temps au temps. Longue vie à vous et à vos équipes
Your response to Gavino Mamia brings to mind a thought by René Char: “Lucidity is the wound closest to the sun.” Sometimes, curbing one’s desires is necessary.
In other words, “the slower things go, the slower they go.” We must let time take its course. Long life to you and your teams.
Gavino Mamia:
I can empathyze you, but it is not an ethical issue, it is a strategic issue to avoid the Ecat be cancelled from the world with any possible mean.
Anyway we are working on it, please read also my answer to Svein minutes ago,
Warm Regards,
A.R.