Thermal power only, though. Not 1MW of electricity

Because of the ready availability of efficient thermoelectric converters, this is a distinction without a difference.

Thermocouples are only 5-7% efficient. Any sort of steam turbine you can't use efficiently due to 120C max output temperature.

What thermoelectric converters are available currently ? I thought the most efficient is a stirling engine and its efficiency is capped by carnot cycle.

You just need a 200 kW power outlet in the disaster zone (According to their technical data sheet).

A 200kW generator can fit on a small trailer. It's pretty common in the electrical generation field to use smaller generators to kick-start successively larger generators. That's how conventional hydro and nuclear plants must be started.

http://www.kohlerpower.com/rental/detail.htm?sectionNumber=2...

You're missing the point that, if the claims were real, 200 KW of the claimed output power of 1 MW cold be used to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement. This kind of "fact sheet" can only persuade people who don't understand physics.

I'm pretty sure this is a scam/hoax. I was just trying to explain how the initial claim itself was at least plausible.

> I was just trying to explain how the initial claim itself was at least plausible.

If the author had wanted to be plausible, he would not have mentioned the required input power. That's a dead giveaway and show-stopper, because anything remotely real would not have that requirement.

If the units can deliver five times their input heat energy, then 1/5 of the output energy can be used to sustain the reaction. That's not difficult to grasp.