New Papyrus

Gasoline from Air and Water

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:49:10 EST

by Marcel F. Williams

Fossil fuels are predominantly responsible for putting excess carbon dioxide and methane intothe Earth's atmosphere, greenhouse gases that are melting our polar ice caps, raising global sea levels, and causing more extreme climate conditions around the world. The coal and natural gas power industry has looked looked towards future technologies for the on site capture of flu gas in order to recover and sequester carbon dioxide. However, there is no cost effective technology for capturing the CO2 from the mobile producers of carbon dioxide: automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and sea craft.

But there are new technologies that are rapidly being developed that may eventually divorce carbon dioxide polluting sources of energy from the need for on site capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. These devices are sometimes referred to as mechanical trees. But what they do is to simply extract and recover carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And these future technologies appear to be far more efficient at extracting CO2 from the air than the plant life on our planet.

Some argue that these carbon dioxide from air extracting technologies could be the saviors of the fossil fuel industry. Ironically, such future technologies could also eventually lead to the complete extinction of fossil use on this planet if the CO2 taken from the atmosphere is used in combination with hydrogen from water to produce hydrocarbon fuels such as: gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether.

Hydrogen

Because the combustion of hydrogen produces only energy and water, hydrogen via the electrolysis of water through hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar has often been proposed as a replacement for hydrocarbon transportation fuels. Liquid hydrogen fuel has been used in US space craft since the days of the Apollo Moon program. And liquid hydrogen has also been frequently proposed for future generation subsonic and hypersonic airliners and aircraft. Hydrogen fueled buses now transport commuters in many urban areas in the US. And hydrogen automobiles have been demonstrated by many automobile companies around the world .

However, hydrogen automobiles have a substantially shorter range than hydrocarbon fueled vehicles and are a lot less efficient than electric vehicles. Refueling hydrogen vehicles also takes much longer than refueling with gasoline, ethanol, or methanol. Because of the hydrogen embrittlement of metals like steel, hydrogen pipelines are more expensive to maintain than natural gas and oil pipelines. Aircraft, seacraft and ground vehicles, and the infrastructure associated with these vehicles, would also have to be completely replaced if we completely replaced our fuel economy with hydrogen.

Hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and hydrogen

Alternatively, there are several demonstrated methods for synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels by utilizing carbon dioxide in combination with hydrogen which could allow a country to avoid any major overhaul in its transportation energy infrastructure.

Chemist have known how to produce methanol from hydrogen and carbon dioxide for more than 80 years:

CO2 + 3H2 → CH3OH (methanol) + H2O

Methanol is mostly used as a feedstock for making other chemicals. But methanol can be converted into dimethyl ether (DME), a fuel that can be effectively used in diesel engines equipped with new fuel injection systems. The fact that dimethyl ether produces no black smoke, soot, or sulfur dioxide is an clean advantage it has over diesel fuel.

Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline via the Mobil Oil methanol to gasoline (MTG) process. Back in the 1980's, the New Zealand government produced 600,000 tonnes of gasoline a year from methanol derived from natural gas using the MTG process.

Methane gas can also be synthesized from hydrogen and carbon dioxide:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 (methane) + 2H2O

And methane can also be converted into diesel and jet fuels via Fischer-Tropsch and hydrocracking processes.

Mechanical extraction of atmospheric CO2

Plants capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while utilizing sunlight to convert the CO2 into starch. During photosynthesis, trees, for instance, convert carbon dioxide and water into starche molecules and oxygen through a series of oxidation and reduction reactions:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + sunlight ---> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre (4047 square meters) of biomass a year. One tonne of dried tree consist of 0.45 tonnes of carbon which would translate into the extraction of 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually extracted from the atmosphere. That's 33 tonnes of CO2 per acre extracted on an annual basis.
Even though the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a meager 0.04 per cent, companies like GRT (Global Research Technologies) in Arizona and Canadian researchers at the University of Calgary have already built machines that can extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far more efficiently than any tree or any other source of biomass. GRT claims that its carbon dioxide air extraction system is a thousand times more efficient than a tree of equal size.

GRT CO2 absorbent material

The University of Calgary team has shown that they could capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon dioxide. Their carbon dioxide from air extraction tower was able to capture the equivalent of about 20 tonnes per year of CO2 on just one single square meter of air scrubbing material. Astonishingly, this suggest that even the most conservative estimates would allow these CO2 extracting machines to produce more than 80 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide per acre annually.

University of Calgary carbon dioxide extraction machine

Because of the need for cheap electricity for hydrogen production, only nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would be currently viable for hydrocarbon fuel production utilizing carbon dioxide from air extraction technologies. Hydroelectric facilities currently produce electricity at 0 .85 cents per kwh while electricity from nuclear facilities currently cost 1.68 cents per kwh. Wind and solar thermal electricity, however, is much more expensive and ranges from over 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents per kwh.

At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, F. Jeffrey Martin and Williams L. Kubic, Jr. have developed the Green Freedom concept for using the cooling towers of nuclear reactors to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for the production of gasoline and methanol.

They argue that a 1 GWe power plant using their Green Freedom method could produce 18,000-bbl/day of gasoline or 5000 tonnes a day of methanol.

Carbon neutral hydrocarbon synfuel production at nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would not only allow such power facilities to produce transportation fuels and industrial chemicals, they would also allow them to pump methanol and oxygen up to 80 kilometers away to high efficiency power plants for the production of peak-load and back-up-load electricity and commercial waste heat. Nuclear power plants could therefore not only produce base-load electricity but could also supply methanol fuel to replace greenhouse polluting natural gas power plants which are used for daytime peak-load energy and back-up energy for wind and solar power plants.

In 2006, the US consumed nearly 21 million bbl/day of petroleum for transportation fuel and industrial chemical use. If we assumed that nuclear power plants replaced all of the petroleum used in the US in 2006, that would roughly require more than a thousand new 1Gwe nuclear reactors, over 1000 GWe of electrical capacity. Existing nuclear sites that already have nuclear reactors could probably on add an additional 200 to 300 Gwe of capacity. However, if one large centralized nuplex (nuclear park) with about 30GWe of average electrical capacity were set up in every state in the union, then that could add an additional 1500 GWe of electrical capacity, more than enough to replace all of our petroleum needs today and probably our needs 30 years from now.

If the new Obama administration is going to invest substantial R&D money into new energy technologies, I would strongly suggest investing in the fast tracking of these carbon dioxide extraction from air technologies that could revolution synfuel production by helping to achieve US independence from the petroleum fuel economy while protecting the global environment from the dangers of global warming and climate change.

Links and References

1. Green Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November 2007 F.J. Martin and WL Kubic,

2. GRT (Global Research Technologies, LLC)

3. Giant Carbon dioxide Vacuums

4. Snatching Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere

5. CO2 capture from air

6. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved:

7. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company, (2007) Earth Institute News Archive, 04/24/07

8. Carbon capture and storage:

9. Researchers Scramble to Create CO2-Busting Technologies:

10. CO2 capture from ambient air: a feasibility assessment:

11. Carbon Capture and Storage A False Solution

12. The Case for Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air

13. Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air

14. K. Schultz, L. Bogart, G. Besenbruch, L. Brown, R. Buckingham, M. Campbell, B. Russ, and B. Wong HYDROGEN AND SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBON FUELS – A NATURAL SYNERGY General Atomics Poster

15. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

Public Power & the Future of Nuclear Energy

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:51:40 EST

by Marcel F. Williams

Because of the dangers of climate change and America's dependence on foreign oil, there's been a lot of speculation about a nuclear renaissance in America and in the rest of the world. The advantages of nuclear power are numerous. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, takes up extremely little land area relative to renewable energy sources, produces 100 times less radioactive waste than coal power plants, and thousands of times less toxic waste than coal power plants.

Nuclear energy represents 20% of electrical power production in America and is currently the second cheapest source of electricity in the country after hydroelectric power. Nuclear power also produces 70% of the non carbon dioxide polluting electricity in the US.

Cheap electricity from nuclear power also enables us to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis that can be combined with carbon from biomass or from the extraction of carbon dioxide from the air for the production of carbon neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, methanol, and dimethyl ether.

If our planet were totally powered by once through uranium reactors there would only be enough terrestrial uranium to power human civilization for 15 years. But if uranium extracted from sea water were utilized, then our entire civilization could be powered for more than 3600 years. If the spent fuel from these reactors were also utilized, as they are in France, then nuclear power could supply the world with all of its energy for over 5000 years.

So even without a new generation of nuclear breeding technologies that could allow us to power the entire planet forever, current nuclear technology could power our planet for at least 5000 years at current levels of energy use and for more than 1600 years if global power consumption was three times our current level.

So its easy to see why numerous countries around the world are interested in either acquiring or expanding nuclear power. However, in the US, the ability to significantly expand nuclear power faces financial and political obstacles that could eventually leave Americans far behind Asia and Europe as the world tries to move towards a non carbon dioxide polluting energy economy.

The US, which created and pioneered the development of nuclear
energy and provided it to the rest of the world, now ranks behind more than ten other countries in the percentage of electricity derived from that technology. Even though the United States has more nuclear reactors than any other nation, as mentioned above, the US produces only 20% of its electricity through nuclear power.

Percentage of electricity produced through nuclear power:

France - 78%
Belgium - 54%
Ukraine - 48%
Sweden - 46%
Switzerland - 40%
Hungary - 37%
South Korea - 35%
Finland - 29%
Japan - 27%
Germany - 26%
USA - 20%
Taiwan - 19%
Russia - 16%
UK - 15%
Canada - 14%

In the US, however, the ability to significantly expand nuclear power faces financial and political obstacles that could eventually leave Americans far behind Asia and Europe as the world tries to move towards a non carbon dioxide polluting energy economy. Jason Ribeiro's recent blog States with Laws that Impede Nuclear Power points out some of the political obstacles in each state that impede the construction of more nuclear reactors in several states.

The problem of spent fuel and nuclear waste is largely a political problem rather than a scientific or technological one, IMO, which I addressed in my article Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste . And the best way to decommission a nuclear reactors is to simply allow irradiated parts of the reactor to safely decay over a period of about 100 to 150 before safe dismantling.

However, the unpredictable cost of capitalizing new nuclear reactors is a cause for concern. Estimates for a new single 1000 MWe nuclear reactor in the US have ranged from less than two billion dollars to as high as over 10 billion dollars. Charles Barton has recently addressed this on his Nuclear Green blog: Are Nuclear Costs Unreasonable?

In my opinion, the fact that US nuclear facilities rely too much on private capital is the biggest obstacle to nuclear power expansion. In the US, there are hundreds of utilities that are generally too small to be able to risk the large capital investment required to build nuclear facilities. In a country like France on the other hand , a single government owned utility provides electricity for the entire country.

The French government owns and operates 59 nuclear power plants which produce over 78% of France's electrical power. France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total electricity production to Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Britain. France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of pro-renewable energy countries like Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which doesn't have any nuclear plants.

The US government also owns a few nuclear facilities via the TVA. And this federal public power corporation was the last utility to build a nuclear power plant in American and is now the first to order the new AP1000 Westinghouse (Toshiba) reactors.

With the desperate need for the US to move towards energy independence from the fossil fuel economy, I believe that it is time for the federal government to move aggressively towards helping to fund new nuclear reactors. Under the new Obama administration, I believe the federal government should provide up to 45% of the investment capital for new nuclear reactors on existing sites.

Alvin Weinberg proposed an existing-site policy back in 1979 as the best way to expand nuclear power in the US. By simply increasing the number of nuclear reactors at existing nuclear sites already in operation, the US could increase its nuclear capacity up to 343 Gwe. That's more than triple current nuclear capacity and would allow America to power nearly 70% of its electricity from nuclear sites that already exist.

In the long run, however, I believe the best way to keep the cost of electricity low in the US for baseload distribution and for synfuel production while finally achieving total energy independence from the fossil fuel economy , is to build multiple reactors within nuclear parks (nuplexes) consisting of 10 to 40 reactors and which include enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing facilities and on site nuclear waste storage facilities. While I strongly believe that nuclear power facilities should continue to be built and operated by private industry, I also believe that nuclear parks (nuplexes) should be capitalized and owned by the Federal government.

That's why I favor the creation of a Federal Nuplex Corporation (FNC). I will elaborate in more detail on this nuclear electricity and synfuel concept in an upcoming post because I believe that it is the cheapest, safest, and most energy productive way of achieving energy independence in the United States.

References and Links

1. Nuclear share figures, 1996-2007

2. Nuclear Power in France

3. Nuclear power in France (Wikipedia)

4. Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste

5. Are Nuclear Costs Unreasonable?

6. States with Laws that Impede Nuclear Power

7. The Economics of Nuclear Power

8. Fueling our Nuclear Future

Electoral Predictions

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:12:18 EST

As the final tabulation of votes are revealed on Wednesday morning, I predict that Barack Obama will win the presidency of the United States by winning a total of 318 electoral votes-- including Florida.

The fatal flaws of the McCain campaign, IMO, were:

1.) Picking Sarah Palin, a woman who clearly lacks the foreign policy experience to be the Commander-in-Chief. If McCain really loves this country and cares about the safety of this country more than he wants the presidency, he certainly didn't show that by picking Palin as his VP nominee!

2.) McCain's failure to focus like a laser beam on the energy re-industrialization of America through both private and public investment in order to end our dependence on foreign oil and to create jobs here in America. McCain did best in his campaign and even in the debates when he talked about energy and especially nuclear energy even though I strongly disagree with him on off-shore drilling. It was a huge mistake, IMO, that he didn't make energy independence through nuclear and renewable energy the primary focus of his campaign.

and

3.) Trying to instill fear and division in America through negative campaigning with phrases like 'paling around with terrorist', 'socialist', folks at his rallies referring to Obama's middle name and screaming for Obama's death. Sorry but that's not what America is all about, or at least it shouldn't be about that.

But if for some tragic reason, McCain and Palin do win the White House, I'll pray (and I'm an atheist:-) for McCain's good health because a Palin presidency, IMO, would put this country and the rest of the world in an extremely dangerous situation thanks to her total lack of foreign experience. The woman got her first passport in 2006!

McCain's picking of Palin is simply an unforgivable act. Unforgivable!!!!

Marcel F. Williams

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

Natural Radiation

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:28:20 EDT

NEW PAPYRUS

The online magazine of science, technology, socioeconomics, and politics

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

Monday, October 20, 2008

Natural Radiation

by Marcel F. Williams

Humans exist on a planet and within a universe that is naturally radioactive. In fact, humans and all other plant and animal species that live and breed on Earth are also inherently radioactive.

Since the birth of the cosmos, the earth has been subjected to an endless hailstorm of cosmic radiation. These potentially deleterious ionizing particles consist of highly accelerated protons, electrons, and neutrons originating mostly from other stars in our galaxy.

Our planet of evolutionary origin is also radioactive due to naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth's crust such as: potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, and rubidinum-87, and radium-226. In fact, the radioactive decay from uranium, thorium, and potassium may be responsible for 45 to 90% of the earth's internal heat source which is the source of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain building, hot springs, and continental drift.

On average, humans receive 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of cosmic radiation. People also receive about 0.5 mSv (50 millirems) of terrestrial radiation. We also inhale about 1.2 mSV (120 millirems) of radiation from radon gas annually.

The human species is also internally radioactive due to the potassium in our bones which exposes our tissues to 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of ionizing radiation. So being in constant proximity to other human beings increases one's exposure to ionizing radiation.

So if you lived with at least one other person in your house, you would receive 0.4 (40 millirems). That's more than ten times as much radiation as you would receive by living near a nuclear facility. If you lived in California and moved to Colorado, you would receive 45 times as much ionizing radiation as you would living next to a nuclear power facility.

Ionizing Radiation Levels (annual):

0.39 (mSv) Annual human internal radiation due to radioactive potassium

0.35 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Louisiana

1.20 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Colorado

0.30 mSv Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of Texas

1.15 mSV Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of South Dakota

0.07 mSv Annual radiation exposure to while living in a stone, brick, or concrete building

0.03 mSv Annual radiation exposure while living near the gate of a nuclear power plant

0.01 Annual USA dose from nuclear fuel and nuclear power plants

1.15 mSv Annual radiation exposure while working at a nuclear power plant

2.0 mSv Annual human internal radiation due to radon

1.0 mSv Annual Limit of dose from all DOE facilities to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker

5.0 mSv Annual USA NRC limit for visitors

Ionizing Radiation Levels (acute):

0.o5 mSV One round-trip to Paris-New York

0.46 mSv off-site exposure to the Three Mile Island core meltdown accident

2.2 mSv Average dose from upper gastrointestinal diagnostic X-ray series

50 mSv Lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults

100 mSv USA EPA acute dose level estimated to increase cancer risk 0.8%

500-1000 mSv Low-level radiation sickness due to short-term exposure

Persons working at a nuclear facility are normally exposed to 1.15 mSv (115 millirems) annually. This would be the equivalent of living in the state of Ohio where Americans there are exposed to an equivalent amount of cosmic and terrestrial radiation and below that of states like Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where one receives a lot more background radiation.

If you lived near the gate of a nuclear reactor and never left the house, you would be exposed to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation annually from that nuclear facility. However, you would receive 0.07 mSv (7 millirems) of radiation if you were living in a stone, brick, or concrete building. So you would receive more radiation from your house than from living near the gate of a nuclear facility.

But what about a nuclear meltdown?

Thanks to the fact that US reactors are housed in huge protective containment structures, the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island exposed nearby residents to only 0.46 mSv of acute radiation. That's nearly five times lower than receiving a gastrointestinal medical X-Ray and more than 100 times below the level of cancer causing radiation. But the new generation of nuclear reactors such as the AP1000 and GE's ESBWR have core damage frequencies at least 100 to 1000 times lower than current reactors such as the LWR at Three Mile Island. But, again, even if a meltdown did occur, the public would be protected by the containment structures which are also designed to withstand an impact from a jet plane.

Americans are exposed to natural radiation from cosmic and terrestrial radiation ranging from as low as 0.75 mSv (75 millirems) to as high as 2.25 mSv (225 millirems). And Americans are exposed to an additional 2.0 mSv (200 millirems) of radon gas on average. Yet living near the gate of nuclear power facility would only expose them to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation. And even consistent contact with a family member would expose you to another 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of radiation annually. So the idea that a dramatic increase in nuclear power would expose humans to a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation is clearly not supported by the scientific evidence.

References and Links

1. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

2. Ionizing radiation (Wikipedia)

3. Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor

4. Martin D. Ecker, and Norton J. Bramesco (1981) Radiation: All you need t know about to stop worrying...or to start, Vintage Books, New York

5. Radiation and Life
Posted by Marcel F. Williams at 12:53 AM 0 comments:

The Cost of Non-Carbon Dioxide Polluting Technologies

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:26:24 EDT

by Marcel F. Williams

Today America and the world finds itself at the dawn of an energy, economic, and environmental crisis.

Carbon dioxide and methane gas pollution from the fossil fuel economy is causing the melting of the polar ice caps and a gradual rise in sea levels that could threaten our coastlines and, in some cases, threaten the existence of entire nations. More violent and extreme weather patterns are also believed to be caused by increasing global temperatures.

The importation of foreign oil is causing the US to send more than $700 billion annually to foreign nations. That's $700 billion dollars a year that is going to other nations instead of being invested right here in the USA. The oil imports do not include the $60 billion a year that the US military spends on protecting the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, essentially a $60 billion a year subsidy to the international oil industry by the US tax payers.

Increasing population and economic growth could also cause an electricity shortage in the US and in many other nations in the near future.

So what do we do?

Energy re-industrialization through nuclear and renewable energy technologies would appear to be the most logical solution to the problems of our energy, the environment, and our economy. Energy re-industrialization through through non-carbon dioxide polluting technologies could not only solve our future energy and environmental problems but could also create tens of millions of jobs in practically every region and community in America.

Cheap base load energy is essential for a growing economy while affordable peak load energy helps to supplement base load capacity during periods of high energy demand. Cheap hydrogen through water electrolysis also requires low priced base load electricity. Hydrogen is an essential ingredient for the production of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and methanol.

While the shift towards electric vehicles and plug-in-hybrid electric automobiles could help the US wean itself off of foreign oil, it will also increase the demand for non-carbon dioxide polluting electricity in order to avoid increasing greenhouse pollution from electric power generating resources.

In our current fossil fuel dominated economy:

coal cost 2.4 cents per kwh

natural gas cost 6.8 cents per kwh

oil cost 9.6 cents per kwh

Amongst non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies:

hydroelectric cost 0.85 cents per kWh

nuclear cost 1.68 cents per kWh

garbage incineration (non-subsidized) cost 4.0 cents per kWh

wind (non-subsidized) cost 4.35 to 6.56 cents per kWh

solar thermal (Sunny climate) cost 6 cents per kWh

home photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 37.78 cents per kWh

home photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 83.13 cents per kWh

commercial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 27.49 cents per kWh

commercial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 60.47 cents per kWh

industrial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 21.41 cents per kWh

industrial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 47.11 cents per kWh

With hydroelectric sources in the US already fully exploited, only nuclear power has the capacity to replace coal as our primary source for base load electricity in the future. While new nuclear power facilities are likely to generate electricity at a higher price than current nuclear reactors, this may be somewhat mitigated by the continued reduction in the cost of electricity from current nuclear facilities as more of these existing sites reach the point where they've paid off their amortized capital cost, leaving only the cost of labor and fuel. However, the building of large clusters of new nuclear power plants in centralized nuclear parks could dramatically reduce capital, labor, security, and fuel transportation cost in the future.

Although significantly higher priced than nuclear, the incineration of urban biowaste could add additional base load capacity in practically every community in America. The off-peak production of methanol via base load water electrolysis synthesized with carbon dioxide flue gas from biowaste incinerators could produce methanol and oxygen to power peak load power plants. Methanol can even be used by current natural gas electric power plants with cheap modifications. The fluctuating load capacity of wind and solar thermal could also be backed up by synthetic methanol.

Eventually, the emerging aerocarbon extraction devices could utilize base load electricity to produce all of our hydrocarbon transportation, industrial chemical, and peak-load fuels once these devices become fully commercialized.

However, the extremely high cost of photovoltaic technologies would appear to regulate these technologies to only marginal aspects of our energy economy in the near future. While solar enthusiast and the wealthy may continue to place these extremely expensive devices on their rooftops, the best place for solar photovoltaics will probably be in remote communities that have very little access to alternative sources of electricity.

References and Links

1. FACTS ABOUT HYDROPOWER

2. Solar Photovoltaic Electricity Price Index
October 2008 Survey Results

3. 6 Cents Per kWh: World's Largest Solar Project Unveiled

4. Cost of Wind: American wind energy association

5. ELECTRICITY AND HEAT FROM BIOMASS

6. The Value of the Benefits of U.S. Biomass Power

7. Municipal Waste Combustion

8. U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Set Record Highs
For Electricity Production, Efficiency in 2007

9. Nuclear Power:Economic Alternative for Baseload Electricity

10. Industry Leader Cites Value of Nuclear Power Plants to California’s Mix of Energy Sources

Fueling our Nuclear Future

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:13:28 EDT

by Marcel F. Williams

One frequent argument against the expansion of commercial nuclear power is the the claim that our planet is simply running out of the nuclear material to power the world's nuclear reactors. So any future expansion of the commercial nuclear power industry would simply be out of the question.

Uranium ore

Nuclear power produces approximately 20% of the electricity in the US and represents approximately 6% of the world's energy consumption. Uranium currently sells at below $35 per kilogram on the world market. But it is estimated that there are approximately 5.5 million tonnes of proven uranium reserves at a cost below $130 per kilogram. With the resurgence of nuclear power, however, it is estimated that the exploration for new uranium sources would increase total reserves to more than 16 million tonnes. The current world demand for uranium is 65,000 tonnes per year. So there should be enough uranium to supply current global nuclear power facilities for 246 years.

Countries with the most abundant uranium supplies

But if nuclear power were required to supply the world's total energy needs, 1.1 million tonnes of uranium would be required annually. So these terrestrial uranium reserves could only power our planet for less than 15 years. And even reprocessing spent fuel would only extend the nuclear fuel supplies to no more than 20 years.

However, there are alternatives to terrestrial uranium.

The world's oceans contain more than 4 billion tonnes of uranium in seawater. That's enough to power our entire planet for more than 3600 years or over 5000 years if spent fuel is also utilized. Japanese uranium from seawater demonstration projects estimate that marine uranium could be extracted at a cost of $135 to $250 per kilogram. Current world uranium prices are less than $35 per kilogram but expected to rise as uranium demand rises as new power plants are built around the world. But since uranium fuel only represents about 5% of the total cost of the energy produce by a fission power plant, that would only increase the total cost of energy via nuclear power by 14 to 31 percent which would still make the cost of nuclear electricity significantly lower than coal and natural gas. New laser uranium enrichment techniques, however, could dramatically lower total fuel cost which could, in theory, wipe out the increase in cost of using seawater uranium since enrichment represents 30% of the cost of nuclear fuel.

Yellow cake extracted from seawater

So even if our future global society used three times as much energy as we use today, marine uranium and spent fuel could provide more than 1600 years of energy. Of course the contribution of renewable energy systems (hydroelectric, wind, solar, and biomass) could stretch uranium supplies even longer.

But even without marine uranium, breeder technologies could power our global society at three times the current level for 700 years using terrestrial uranium. Nuclear breeding technologies such as fast neutron reactors or ADS accelerator reactors could increase fuel supplies by a factor of 140 since fissile uranium 235 only represents about 0.7% of natural uranium. In light water reactors (LWR), approximately 70% of the uranium 235 is converted into energy while another third comes from the conversion of plutonium into energy which is created as a by product of the neutron irradiation of uranium 238. Breeder technologies could give the world a 500,000 year supply of nuclear power or a 166,000 year supply at three times current energy use levels. However, the oceans are constantly being replenished with uranium from the worlds oceans, depositing over 32,000 tonnes of uranium annually. Since breeder technologies would only require less than 24,000 tonnes of uranium annually, marine uranium could power our entire society at three times the current level essentially-- forever!

Thorium is another alternative to terrestrial uranium. There is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is terrestrial uranium 238. Neutron bombardment within a reactor can convert fertile thorium 332 into fissile uranium 233. And there is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is uranium 238. So terrestrial nuclear fuel sources could power our global society at three times the current level for approximately 2800 years.

A CANDU heavy water reactor could have an 80% conversion rate if it utilized fissile uranium or plutonium inside of a thorium blanket. A modified CANDU heavy water reactor that uses thorium fuel enriched with fissile uranium 235, plutonium 239, or uranium 233 can produce as much fissile fuel as it utilizes. An ADS accelerator reactor could also breed uranium 233 from thorium. For every kilogram of plutonium burned in a thorium breeder, approximately 2.73 kilograms of uranium 233 could be produced, more than 8o% of a reactors total fissile fuel requirements. Combined with the 30% of reprocessed uranium 235 from spent fuel, an ADS could supply all of a reactors fuel needs through uranium 238 and thorium 232. However, it might by easier and cheaper just to gradually replace third generation reactors with thorium and uranium burning ADS reactors.

Japanese companies currently lead the world in uranium extraction from sea water technology. But, in my opinion, the next US administration should set the goal for the commercial extraction of uranium from sea water within 10 years time. The US should also set the goal of having a functioning full scale ADS accelerator thorium breeder online within a decade with the goal of having commercial ADS reactors online within 20 years time. The same goal should be set by the Canadian government for the CANDU thorium breeder reactor.

Such policies should insure a smooth transition from our current terrestrial uranium, third generation, nuclear economy to a more diverse nuclear economy that includes current reactor technology, fast neutron reactors and ADS breeder reactors along with a more diverse fuel supply that includes terrestrial uranium, uranium from seawater, and thorium.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/10/fueling-our-nuclear-future.html

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com

Federal support for non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:47:22 EDT

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Federal support for non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies

by Marcel F. Williams

Management Information Services, Inc. of Washington D.C. has recently come out with a report that indicates that most of the US tax subsidies and R&D for the energy industry from 1950 to 2006 has gone to the fossil fuel industry. The oil industry led the way with 335 billion dollars in Federal Energy incentives. The natural gas industry was second with over 100 billion dollars in federal energy incentives. Coal was third with 94 billion dollars. So the greenhouse gas polluting fossil fuel industries have received over 529 billion dollars in Federal energy incentives from 1950 to 2006.

Amongst renewable energy technologies, hydroelectric power has received 80 billion in federal energy incentives, wind and solar has received 45 billion in federal energy incentives, and geothermal has received 7 billion in federal energy incentives. So the amount of federal energy incentives for renewable energy was 132 billion between 1950 and 2006.

Nuclear energy has received 65 billion in federal energy incentives. However, less than 6 billion dollars of federal energy incentives have been provided for light water reactors in the US which are the only nuclear power facilities that produce commercial electricity in the US. The rest has been for R&D for breeder reactors and other reactor types that have never gone on line commercially in the US.

While nuclear energy has received less than half the federal energy incentives of renewable energy systems, it currently produces nearly 20 % of electricity in the US while renewable energy systems produce less than 9% of US electricity. Solar, Wind, and Geothermal energy has been provided with 52 billion in federal energy incentives, yet , combined, they provide only 1.1% of US electricity.

So it is clear that amongst the federal energy incentives for non-carbon dioxide polluting technologies, nuclear power has produced substantially more electrical energy than renewable systems for far less money. And this is especially true when it comes to wind, solar, and geothermal technologies which currently produce nearly 20 times less electricity than nuclear power.

References and Links

1. Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development September 2008By Management Information Services, Inc. Washington, D.C.

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Bezdek_Report.pdf

2. Which Energy Industry Gets the Biggest Subsidies?

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/09/which_energy_in.html

3. Support for nuclear dwarfed by that for fossil fuels A New Papyrus Publication

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-US_government_spending_on_nuclear_dwarfed_by_fossil_fuels-2509085.html

Chuck Hagel: Palin not qualified

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:57:24 EDT

GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified

WASHINGTON - Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy experience and called it a "stretch" to say she's qualified to be president.

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
Could Palin lead the country if GOP presidential nominee John McCain could not?
"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.
McCain and other Republicans have defended Palin's qualifications, citing Alaska's proximity to Russia. Palin told ABC News, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
Hagel took issue with that argument. "I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
Hagel, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In July, Hagel traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Though he didn't expect to be asked, Hagel had said he would have considered serving as Obama's running mate.
Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,500, before becoming Alaska's governor in December 2006.
Palin visited soldiers in Kuwait and Germany last year and said in an interview with ABC News that her only other foreign travel had been to Mexico and Canada. She also said she had never met a foreign head of state.
Hagel told the newspaper that other governors have been elected to serve in the White House without experience in Washington. He said judgment and character were also important for the job.
"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."

America can't afford 4 more years of another Republican administration

Marcel F. Williams — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:29:58 EDT

That should be the Democratic logo for Obama and the Democratic campaign the rest of the way. America can't afford another 4 more years of a Republican administration. McCain has admitted that he doesn't know much about the economy and one of his top economic advisers is partially responsible for deregulating the financial markets.

And his VP nominee, Palin, as mayor left her tiny town of Wasilla 20 million dollars in debt after inheriting a surplus.

AMERICA CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER 4 MORE YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION!

Marcel F. Williams

Joe Biden needs a lot more TV exposure

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:41:26 EDT

The most effective pro Obama advocate right now is Joe Biden. Yet the media is hardly giving this Truman-like warrior any air time.

I think its time for the Obama campaign to give Biden a lot more air time by putting Biden in more short commericials where he's talking to the American people about specific issues: the Obama economic plan, the Obama energy plan, the Obama foreign policy plan, and Biden telling the American people that frankly McCain and Palin are just the continuation of the George Bush Republicanism that has ruined our economy and alienated America in the rest of the world.

This campaign needs a fresh face and a lot more exposure for the 'Happy Warrior', Joe Biped.

McCain & Palin are running as George Bush Republicans

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:48:52 EDT

McCain and Palin are running as George Bush Republicans. Yet they have called their support for the George Bush agenda as CHANGE! Palin is practically a clone of George Bush in all of her policies and beliefs. And McCain has admitted supporting George Bush policies at least 90% of the time.

Why most Democrates, including Obama, are letting them get away with this deception is beyond me!

Its time to go on the attack by labeling McCain and Palin what they truly are: George Bush Republicans. McCain and Plalin are 'George Bush Republicans' who want to continue the policies of George W. Bush for another four years. Obama needs to tell Americans who McCain and Palin really are and turn this race around!

George Bush must be laughing!

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:50:59 EDT

McCain and Palin have adopted practically all of George Bush's policies. Yet the Democrats continue to allow McCain/Palin to pretend that they're not really Republicans at all. George Bush and Dick Cheney must be really laughing about all of this.

But they say, you can't fight Palin because she's a woman. And you can't fight McCain because he's a hero. But Obama' and the Democrats 'prevent defense' strategy is simply not working.

Its time to try the Harry Truman method of fighting back-- with the truth. Its time to define McCain and Palin as what they really are: George Bush Republicans!

If the Democrats don't stand up and fight this time then it could mean the end of the party and disaster for this country.

Marcel F. Williams

There is no light between the Palin philosophy and the George Bush philosophy

Marcel F. Williams — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:26:52 EDT

I'm astonished that the Democrats have been so sheepish in response to Sarah Palin. The woman is a George Bush clone. There is practically no light between Palin's political and economic philosophy and that of George Bush. Yet all the Democrats have to say about her is that she's a nice lady?

There won't be any change in Washington if McCain and Palin get in because they'd have to change themselves first since they both agree with George Bush over 90% of the time. And Palin is practically a clone of one of the most unpopular presidents in the history of America. Yet the Democrat leadership appears to have nothing to say about this George Bush clone. Astonishing!

Marcel F. Williams

Palin: the most underqualifed VP ever?

Marcel F. Williams — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:16:32 EDT

From The Sunday Times September 14, 2008Sarah Palin: the most underqualified vice-president ever?

Andrew Sullivan

For the past two weeks serious commentators and columnists have been asked to take the candidacy of Sarah Palin for the vice-presidency of the United States seriously.

Formerly sane people have written of the McCain campaign’s selection of this running mate as if it represents a new face for Republicanism, an emblem of can-do western spirit, a brilliant ploy to win over Clinton voters, a new feminism, a reformist revolution, and a genius appeal to the religious right.

I’m afraid I cannot join in. In fact I cannot say anything about this candidacy that takes it in any way seriously. It is a farce. It is absurd. It is an insult to all intelligent people. It is a sign of a candidate who has lost his mind. There is no way to take the nomination of Palin to be vice-president of the world’s sole superpower - except to treat it as a massive, unforgivable, inexplicable decision by someone who has either gone insane or is managerially unfit to be president of the United States. When, at some point, the hysteria dies down, even her supporters will realise that, by this decision, McCain has rendered himself unfit to run a branch of Starbucks, let alone the White House.

Sarah Palin is a clone of George Bush!

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:54:23 EDT

John McCain picked a clone of George Bush as his VP. Just listen to Palin's political philosophy. And look at record. So how is picking a clone of George Bush change??????

Obama needs to call John McCain out on this!

McCain and Palin are George Bush Republicans

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:17:06 EDT

McCain and Palin claim that they are 'Mavericks' when they're actually 'George Bush Republicans!

McCain freely admits that he 's agreed with George Bush 90% of the time. And Palin is practically a clone of George W. with her extremely conservative evangelical views

So its time for Obama, Biden, and the rest of the Democratic leaders of our party to start calling McCain and Palin exactly what they are-- both during interviews on on the television networks and in political commercials.

McCain and Palin are 'George Bush Republicans' and its about time Obama let political Independents, disaffected Republicans, and Hillary Democrats start calling them that!

Marcel F. Williams

Its time for the Democrats to start attacking McCain and Palin on Global Warming

Marcel F. Williams — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:23:59 EDT

John McCain claims he wants to fight climate change yet he wants to drill for more off-shore oil which will increase global warming from both carbon dioxide and the methane released from drilling. An now he's chosen a VP nominee in Palin who doesn't even believe in global warming.

McCain and Palin need to be severely attacked in television adds on the issue of global warming and Obama needs to argue that technologies already exist that will allow us to produce carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, and aviation fuel from the urban refuse from our cities, farms, and forest.

Marcel F. Williams

Palin is a Rush Limbaugh Republican!

Marcel F. Williams — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:16:55 EDT

Its time for the Obama campaign to start raising the negatives on Sarah Palin by pointing out to women that she is a Rush Limbaugh Republican!

Put her picture and Mr. Limbaugh's face together on TV. Rush is Palin's most enthusiastic supporter and Palin is a Rush Limbaugh Republican who is against fighting climate change, was for the war in Iraq, and is against a woman's right to choose.

It's also time for the Democrats to focus solely on Palin's flip flops as a reformer and her lack of interest in international affairs (the woman just got her first passport in 2006). Don't even mention John McCain in these commercials. Just focus the legitimate negative attacks on Sarah Palin and how she would hurt women and this country if she was just a heartbeat from the presidency.

Don't play nice with this woman or we'll end up with a 3rd term of the George Bush policies!

Marcel F. Williams

Gasoline from Garbage

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:43:48 EDT

Gasoline produced from biomass could be in fuel tanks by 2010 with new technology

TEES researchers and Byogy Renewables, Inc., are working to turn everyday waste into gasoline.

Turning everyday waste into gasoline may seem like a distant dream, but thanks to researchers with the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) and Byogy Renewables Inc., it could become a reality within two years.

Dr. Kenneth Hall, associate director of TEES and the Jack E. & Frances Brown Chair and professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas A&M University, and his colleagues, Mark T. Holtzapple, a professor in chemical engineering, and Sergio A. Capareda, a professor in biological and agricultural engineering, have developed a process to make converting biomass to high-octane gasoline possible.

The advanced process is possibly the only integrated system that converts biomass directly to gasoline. Most other emerging processes convert the biomass into alcohol and then blend it with gasoline. The system is relatively inexpensive and focuses on using biomass waste streams and non-food energy crops rather than food products such as corn.

Additionally, the cost of such a conversion would lie between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon excluding all government subsidies and tax credits. This cost range is dependent on the type and cost of feedstock as well as the size of the biorefinery. This would provide some much-needed relief for consumers when it comes to fueling their vehicles, whose current options are to pay more or drive less.

Biomass includes garbage, biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, green waste such as lawn clippings, food waste, and any type of livestock manure. Additionally, since it does not use crops such as corn, it will not put a strain on food supplies. The process could also utilize non-food/feed crops grown specifically for biomass energy.

"This technology is important because it addresses many issues - eliminating waste, producing economical fuel quickly and being friendly to our environment," Hall said. "It's a win-win for industry and consumers. Furthermore, this technology is ready to be commercialized now and does not require any new scientific or technological breakthroughs to become a reality."

Through an agreement with the Texas A&M University System, Byogy has licensed the process and hopes to have a plant using the technology up and running within 18 months to two years. The intent is to have raw garbage going in one end of the plant and 95-octane gasoline coming out the other.

Texas A&M University's Department of Chemical Engineering is world-renowned in the area of process design, integration and optimization. A team led by professor Mahmoud El-Halwagi, a pioneer in the field of Process Integration, has been assembled to conduct the initial process integration work to provide a detailed set of design and operating procedures that will lead to the most competitive biofuels production processes for this technology.

"Our goal with this technology is to achieve as much as a 2 percent contribution to the nation¿s gasoline demand by 2022 through the building of 200 more bio-refineries," said Benjamin J. Brant, President and Chief Technology Officer of Byogy. "We firmly believe the TEES technology combined with the Byogy team offers this possibility."

The focus at the initial plant would be on using urban waste, which the plant would grind, sort and then convert into gasoline. The fuel produced by this process could immediately be used as a drop-in substitute to the current petroleum gasoline supplies with a seamless integration into the existing fuel distribution infrastructure. Nothing needs to be changed at retail gas stations, pipelines, regional fuel terminals or in any motor vehicle.

"Our plan is to produce two-and-a-half billion gallons or more of carbon neutral renewable gasoline per year, said Daniel L. Rudnick, Chief Executive Officer of Byogy. We are positioning ourselves not only to handle the opportunity biomass waste streams that are available today, but also the sustainable biomass energy crops of the future. This green substitute for conventional gasoline is the Holy Grail of all biofuels."

About TEES: TEES is the engineering research agency of the State of Texas and a member of The Texas A&M University System. TEES researchers conduct quality research and provide practical answers to critical state and national needs. The agency partners with industry, communities and academic institutions to solve problems to help improve the quality of life, promote economic development and enhance the educational systems of Texas. TEES also promotes new technology education and investigates problems in health and the environment.

About Byogy Renewables, Inc.: Byogy is a new technology company that offers the next generation of high-octane liquid transportation fuels derived from renewable biomass waste streams and dedicated non-food energy crops. It was founded by leading renewable energy entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists and industry pioneers from the private sector and academic world.

For more information, contact Dr. Kenneth Hall, 979-845-3357, krhall@tamu.edu; Benjamin J. Brant, 303-670-0880, bbrant@byogy.com; Daniel Rudnick, 661-333-2662, drudnick@byogy.com.

For more information on Byogy visit http://www.byogy.com.

What Obama should say on energy on thursday!

Marcel F. Williams — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:36:25 EDT

Obviously, Barack Obama won't say any of this on Thursday night in Denver. But I really wish that he would make a bolder statement on energy independence at the convention in order to-- capture the imagination-- of Democrats and Independents in this country. But this is what I'd like him to say:

"While my opponent, John McCain, continues to advocate the Bush administration policies of drilling for more oil in order to enrich the multi-national oil companies while threatening our coastlines and putting more greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere, I believe that it is time to move America in a much different direction.

I believe that it is time for this nation to commit itself towards achieving the goal of generating all of the electricity in this country though non greenhouse gas producing technologies within the next 25 years. Such an effort will not only require our continued use of clean hydroelectricity but will also require a major expansion in the use of non carbon-dioxide polluting technologies such as wind, solar, and nuclear energy if this goal is to be achieved. But if our nation is to help mitigate the potential catastrophe of global climate change and global sea rise then we're simply going to have to stop putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I also believe that it is time to commit this nation towards achieving the goal, also within 25 years time, of producing all of our nation's liquid transportation fuel needs through the production of carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, methanol, and dimethyl ether through the utilization of urban and rural biomass and, or the extraction of carbon dioxide from air combined with clean hydrogen produced through wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear energy. This will not only help America and the rest of the world deal with climate change but will also finally put an end to America's importation of carbon-dioxide polluting petroleum fuels from the multi-national oil companies.

These efforts towards energy independence from petroleum and other fossil fuels will require huge private and public investments in America's clean energy infrastructure over the next 25 years. But I believe that these goals can be achieved if we aggressively set up and properly fund the clean energy infrastructure necessary to make America's gradual transition from a greenhouse gas polluting petroleum and fossil fuel economy towards a clean, carbon-neutral, electric and synthetic fuel economy."

I seriously wish Obama would say this because I believe that this transition can occur in less than 25 years-- if we're truly serious about energy independence and putting an end to our contribution towards global warming.

Marcel F. Williams

Young people go into nuclear engineering

Marcel F. Williams — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:59:49 EDT

Nuclear power's resurgence generates need for engineers By Jeffrey Tomich ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH Monday, Aug. 25 2008 ROLLA, MO. — On a July afternoon when many teenagers are savoring the final
weeks of summer by the pool or at the mall, Erica Bay of Mexico, Mo., was busy
explaining the workings of a pressurized water reactor and calculating neutron
multiplication factors.

Bay, 17, was among 25 high school juniors and seniors who spent a week at
Missouri University of Science & Technology's nuclear engineering camp — a
Nuclear 101 crash course for prospective students.

The camp, the only of its kind in the nation, began in 2000 as a recruiting
tool. At the time, nuclear engineering enrollment at Missouri S&T was dwindling
and administrators were desperate for new ways to interest students in what was
viewed by some as an outmoded technology.

Today, nuclear engineering programs aren't worried about empty classrooms. The
nuclear power sector is in the early stages of a revival. Utilities and vendors
are hungry for more workers. Salaries are rising. And some schools that once
couldn't find enough students now have too many.

Missouri S&T (formerly Missouri-Rolla) will enroll 168 nuclear engineering
students — three times as many as a few years ago — when classes start today.
And interest in the camp has swelled to the point that the school charges $500
to attend. Until this year, it was free, except for a $50 application fee.

"We're not struggling to find students anymore. We're looking to find good
students," said Arvind S. Kumar, chairman of the school's nuclear engineering
department. Enrollment "has been increasing ever since 2000, to the point that
we're bursting at the seams."

It's the same story at the University of Missouri-Columbia, where the nuclear
engineering graduate program capped enrollment at 65 to keep class sizes
manageable.

"We're saturated," said Mark A. Prelas, a professor and director of research at
Mizzou's Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute. "We just don't have the
faculty resources to handle any more."

AGING WORK FORCE

The urgency to find more engineers and technicians can be defined by a single
number: 48 — the average age of a U.S. nuclear worker.

Last fall, Carol Berrigan, an official for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry trade association, told a congressional committee that 19,600 current
nuclear utility employees — more than one-third of the total — will be eligible
to retire by 2012, and the industry also could lose 6,300 more workers to
attrition during that period.

"Plants aren't shutting down for a lack of qualified people," said Charles
Goodnight, a management consultant in Vienna, Va., who specializes in staffing
at nuclear plants. "But there are large numbers of people who will retire in
the next three to five years. It's already starting to happen, and it's
happening worldwide."

AmerenUE has ramped up recruiting efforts for engineers and technicians to
staff the Callaway plant outside Fulton, Mo., said Bill Jessop, manager of
business operations at the plant. The efforts include maintaining close ties
with University of Missouri campuses at Rolla and Columbia. The company also
has been active at job fairs and worked with Linn State Technical College in
Mexico, Mo., to recruit and train technicians.

Since November, the utility has hired 39 new engineers at Callaway. "Our
demographics are similar to what you see in the rest of the industry, there's
no doubt," Jessop said.

BUILDING BOOM

At the same time, utilities collectively are eyeing dozens of new plants, each
of which will require hundreds of engineers, technicians and other workers.

A decade ago, inexpensive natural gas was seen as the clean fuel of the future
and the nuclear industry was still trying to rescue its image following the
accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the 1986 meltdown at
Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union.

Now, concern about global warming and soaring oil and natural gas prices are
helping nuclear technology stage a comeback.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications for 18 new
nuclear reactors in the last two years and expects filings for another 16 by
the end of 2010. Among the companies seeking a license to build and operate a
new plant is AmerenUE, which is considering a new, 1,600-megawatt reactor at
Callaway.

If built, the plant will require 2,500 workers during construction and 400 new
full-time employees.

The nuclear building boom isn't limited to the United States. New reactors are
being built in Russia, France and Finland. China is seeking to build 60
gigawatts of nuclear generation — equal to 50 Callaway plants — by 2020 as the
world's fastest-growing economy copes with surging demand for energy.

And competition for workers isn't just among utilities. The NRC also is hiring
aggressively as are vendors such as Westinghouse Electric Co., General Electric
Corp. and France's Areva NP. The power sector also must compete with the
medical and defense industries for engineers.

"We're all trying to hire from the same pool," said Beth Hayden, an NRC
spokeswoman.

The NRC has added about 400 new employees, or 12 percent more staff, since the
start of last year — about half of them scientists and engineers needed to help
process reactor license applications and applications from companies seeking to
certify new reactor designs.

The agency estimates that just one construction and operating license
application will require the equivalent of 60 full-time employees to process.

"There's a sense of desperation in the industry," said Prelas, of Mizzou. "What
we're experiencing now is just the retirement demands. The next wave is going
to be the actual buildup of the nuclear industry from construction phase, and
that's going to be a real big crunch. We're waiting for it to hit. We know it's
coming."

HIRING OUTLOOK

Renewed interest in nuclear engineering is both opportunity and challenge for
universities like Missouri S&T.

A survey by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, an arm of the
U.S. Department of Energy, showed undergraduate nuclear engineering enrollment
in the country has doubled since 2000. Still, there's doubt whether
universities can produce new engineers fast enough.

At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society this month, the group's president,
William Burchill, said utilities will need to hire 470 nuclear engineers a year
to keep up with retirement and attrition rates and another 200 a year to
prepare for the first eight new reactors expected to begin operation in the
next decade. Meanwhile, fewer than 100 new graduates are entering the work
force each year because many are going on to pursue graduate degrees.

Part of the problem is there are just 31 universities with nuclear engineering
programs — and just 22 with undergraduate programs. Some schools dropped
programs in the 1990s as the pipeline of new reactors — and jobs — dried up,
and interest in nuclear engineering among students waned.

Now, schools once hungry for more students are having to turn them away.

Realizing this, the nuclear industry has stepped up funding to help schools
expand engineering programs. Missouri S&T, for instance, got $160,000 from the
NRC for undergraduate education. The school also got an unsolicited $50,000
grant from Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. operator of nuclear
plants.

The problem for universities is that students aren't the only ones being
recruited. So are the faculty. "Every three or four or five years, we bring
faculty in, and they leave for greener pastures," Kumar said.

HIGH-POWERED PAY

Back in Rolla, highlights of nuclear camp include a visit to AmerenUE's
Callaway plant and witnessing the "blue glow" of the school's demonstration
reactor — a bluish light created when charged particles travel through water
faster than the speed of light.

Even ice cream takes a scientific twist: It's made using liquid nitrogen.

Most of the teens arrived already aware of the demand for engineers and the
salaries and perks being offered to graduates. If not, reminders were
everywhere during their week on campus.

Average salaries for first-year engineers are displayed on a bulletin board on
the second floor of Fulton Hall, which houses the nuclear engineering program.

If that wasn't enough, camp counselors Michael Hoffman and Terry Yu offered
walking exhibits.

Hoffman and Yu graduated from Missouri S&T in May with nuclear engineering
degrees. Both got jobs with Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, a research facility
that supports the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program with starting salaries of
$58,000 a year plus a $16,000 signing bonus.

William Benzer, manager of Missouri S&T's demonstration reactor, said most
seniors have jobs before they graduate. Some have jobs before Christmas break.

One of the students at nuclear camp, John Beagles, 17, was interested in
engineering and had already sent his ACT scores to schools, including Purdue
and Missouri S&T.

Beagles hadn't decided between chemical engineering and nuclear engineering but
said he was impressed by what he heard from instructors and recent graduates
during his week on campus.

"As far as nuclear, the future looks good," he said.

jtomich@post-dispatch.com | 314-340-8320

US airforce looks to buy Californian garbage jet fuel

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:19:52 EDT

Biting the hand that feeds IT

US airforce looks to buy Californian garbage jet fuelBy Lewis PagePublished Thursday 13th March 2008 12:37 GMT

An American tech-licencing company says it is in negotiations with the US Air Force - and unnamed airlines - to supply jet fuel made from Californian household waste. A combination of high oil prices, a military push to find secure fuel sources, and governmental incentives are expected to make the business case viable.

Flight International reports that the Solena Group intends to take biomass waste from communities in northern and central California and convert this to synthetic gas.

This will be done using the company's proprietary "plasma gasification" tech, which uses 5,000°C plasma arcs to convert household wastes - or coal, coke etc - into gas fuel. Solena claims that the energy value of the syngas output is four times that required to run the plasma furnaces, making the process self-powering.

In the proposed jet-fuel deal, the syngas would then be further processed into liquid fuel suitable for use in aircraft. Such processes typically burn a tonne of feedstock for each tonne of go-juice produced, but apparently Solena reckons it can still produce 1,800 barrels of fuel per day in California - enough to fly a jumbo jet to Australia and halfway back again.

The plasma gasification, the gas-to-liquid conversion and finally the airliner engines will release substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. However, this carbon would eventually have been emitted from the decomposing biomass waste if it were simply dumped, and the airliners would have burned fossil fuel instead; so the idea is climate-change-friendly overall. It also saves on landfill, of course.

The commercial economics would seem highly uncertain, however, and Solena chief Robert Do was unwilling to name any airlines in connection with the project. He did say that the present high prices of crude oil - and consequently of ordinary fossil jet fuel - made the business case viable.

"We feel that we can survive at the current commercial market price," he told (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/12/222171/airlines-in-price-negotiations-for-solenas-waste-derived.html) Flight.

That said, apparently the Solena numbers also rely on a US biofuels tax credit which will vanish under current plans in 2008: and production cannot begin until 2011. The current crude price can't be relied on not to drop over such a timescale either.

On the other hand, the US Air Force's desire for fuel supplies independent of crude imports isn't going away. This at least would seem to offer a firm customer for Solena's garbage-juice, and a customer potentially willing to be tied down in a longer-term deal at a price higher than airlines would be willing to pay.

The USAF wants to be getting at least 150 kilobarrels a day from non-petroleum sources by 2010, so it could easily take all of Solena's initial planned output. Realistically, the air force seems likely to be Solena's main customer - though airlines might well get involved for publicity and research purposes.

It doesn't seem plausible that one could ever run very much of the airline industry on biomass-waste fuel anyway: US aviation uses 1.6 megabarrels daily, almost 1,000 times what Solena reckons to produce from north-central Californian garbage.

Solena has plans for the future, however. Like many in the airline game, the company sees algae-based biofuel as the solution. Rather than dreaming of miracle/terrifying scum blooms able to live in saltwater and draw their carbon from atmospheric CO2, Solena proposes that relatively ordinary algae be nourished using sequestered carbon from coal powerplants.

This would be substantially easier than making algae grow without artificial carbon inputs. However, it would essentially involve shifting carbon emissions from the powerplant stack to airliner exhausts - rather than eliminating them as many would prefer.

But emissions would be reduced overall; and crude oil imports to the West, with their possible associated costs in jihadi terrorism (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/25/zubrin_energy_terror_alcohol_plan/) and global military campaigns, would also be reduced. ®

Industry seeks alternative to aviation fuel

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:55:35 EDT

August 24, 2008

Industry seeks alternative to aviation fuel

A non-conventional coal blend is being used in S. Africa

By CHRIS KAHN
Associated Press

PHOENIX -- With the price of oil still above $100 a barrel, everything from wood chips to algae blooms is being scrutinized as an alternative to traditional fuel. But when it comes to airplanes, finding the right mix poses a special challenge.

"When you're in an airplane, you don't want your fuel to start solidifying," said Robert Dunn, a Department of Agriculture chemical engineer who is studying biodiesel jet fuel.

The airline industry is aggressively pushing for homegrown alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuel, while leaning on customers with a variety of new travel charges to help control a projected $61 billion industrywide fuel expense this year. A number of alternatives to standard jet fuel have been studied for years, though aircraft manufacturers say the challenge is to find ideas that will work now.

Jet engines can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen, for example. But hydrogen does not pack the same punch as traditional jet fuel -- kerosene -- and would require airlines to buy planes designed with huge tanks. That is a tough choice for cash-strapped carriers, said Billy Glover, managing director of environmental strategy at Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

The best bet right now for non-conventional fuel comes from South Africa, experts said. The country has powered its airline industry for a decade using a coal-based jet fuel blend developed by petrochemicals group Sasol. It's technically a "synthetic" fuel, which means it can be used without altering engines or other aircraft equipment.

A number of U.S. companies are developing a variety of similar synthetics. Airline experts say three companies in particular could provide as much as three million gallons a day of synthetic fuel by 2012: American Clean Coal Fuels of Portland, Ore., Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., and Rentech Inc. of Los Angeles.

Though significant supplies will not be ready for several years, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) -- a coalition that includes the Federal Aviation Administration, airline, manufacturing and airport associations -- wants to set standards by the end of the year for a 50 percent synthetic jet fuel. CAAFI wants standards for a totally synthetic fuel ready in two years.

"We're looking for something that is so correct in its performance that it can be interchanged with petroleum-based kerosene," Glover said. "From a distribution standpoint, from a technical standpoint, it needs to fit without modifications or special handling."

CAAFI Executive Director Richard L. Altman said the push for new fuel standards is meant to show investors that airlines will buy synthetic fuel. Doing so will send needed dollars to energy startups that may one day replace foreign oil, Altman said.

"Nobody will invest unless the fuel is certified," he said. "So we have a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem."

With more companies investing in alternative energy, the thinking goes, the more synthetic jet fuel eventually becomes available. The more fuel available, the easier it will be for airlines to unshackle themselves from volatile petroleum markets.

In February, Boeing partnered with Virgin Atlantic to test a flight that included a biofuel mixture of babassu oil, which comes from a palm tree in northern Brazil, and coconut oil.

Many biofuels may create more problems than they solve, however. Using edible feedstocks such as corn and sugar could raise the price of food. And palm trees for babassu and coconut oil could lead to clearing large chunks of rain forest.

These are some of the reasons why algae-based synthetic fuel is getting a lot of attention.

Algae is inedible, and it has a relatively high yield compared with other crops, using less land to produce the same amount of oil.

"It can be grown anywhere you can have a pool of water and expose it to sunlight," said Stanford Seto, an expert in aviation fuels who works with ASTM International, a Pennsylvania-based organization that develops standards for jet fuel.

Investors have pumped almost $84 million into companies developing algae-based fuel so far this year, up from $29 million in all of 2007, according to the Cleantech Group, an industry research firm.

Despite its promise, it will be years before algae biofuel could be sold at a price that would make sense to an airline, said Dave Jones, co-founder of LiveFuels, an algae fuel startup in San Carlos, Calif.

"If anyone is below $50 a gallon, I'd be stunned," he said. "We have a pretty good idea on how to grow algae. The biggest challenge is in the harvesting and how to extract it from the water."

Even if prices come down, most airlines see synthetic fuel as a chance to run a greener airline, not necessarily a cheaper one, said Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs for the Air Transport Association.

More fuel sources could temper the effect oil speculation has on gas prices, and they could give carriers fuel at a cost they can count on, she said. But "you aren't going to find a fuel that's pennies on the dollar than what we find today," she said.

For travelers, that means that fewer flight options and charges for checked bags, drinks and other items are here to stay.

"Even if we were to double the volume we were to make in biofuels every year for the next 10 years, we're still looking at maybe this will impact 15 percent of the overall fuel supply," said Brian Fan, Cleantech's senior director of research.

"Realistically, for anything to be happening at scale, enough to actually impact an airline's bottom line, we're years away," Fan said.

Global warming time bomb trapped in Arctic Soil

Marcel F. Williams — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:36:57 EDT

Global warming time bomb trapped in Arctic soil:

study Sun Aug 24, 1:15 PM ET PARIS (AFP) -

Climate change could release unexpectedly huge stores of carbon dioxide from Arctic soils, which would in turn fuel a vicious circle of global warming, a new study warned Sunday. ADVERTISEMENT And according to one commentary on the research, current models of climate change have not taken this extra source of greenhouse gas into account. Scientists have long known that organic carbon trapped inside a blanket of frozen permafrost covering one fifth of the world's land mass would, if thawed, release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

But until now they simply did not have a good idea of how much carbon is actually locked inside this Arctic freezer. To find out, a team of American researchers led by Chien-Lu Ping of the University of Alaska Fairbanks examined a wide range of landscapes across North America. They took soil samples from 117 sites, each to a depth of at least one metre, in order to provide a full assessment of the region's so-called "carbon pool." Previous estimates of the Arctic carbon pool relied heavily on a relative handful of measurements conducted outside of the Arctic, and only to a depth of 40 centimetres (15.5 inches).

The study, published in the British journal Nature Geoscience, found that the stock of organic carbon "is considerably higher than previously thought" -- 60 percent more than the previously estimated. This is roughly equivalent of one sixth of the entire carbon content in the atmosphere. And that is just for North America. The size and mix of landscapes in the northern reaches of Europe and Russia are about the same, and probably contain a comparable amount of carbon-dioxide producing matter currently held in check only by the cold, the study said. And the danger of a thaw is real, note climate scientists.

The Nobel Prize-winning UN panel of climate change scientists project temperature increases by century's end of up to six degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Arctic region, which is more sensitive to global warming than any other part of the planet. Commenting on the research, Christian Beer of the Max Planck Institute in Jena, Germany, pointed out that the climate change models upon which future projections are based, do not include the potential impact of the gases trapped frozen Arctic soils.

"Releasing even a portion of this carbon into the atmosphere, in the form of methane or carbon dioxide, would have an significant impact on Earth's climate," he noted in his commentary, also published in Nature Geoscience. Methane, another greenhouse gas, is less abundant than carbon dioxide but several times more potent as a driver of global warming.

Nuclear waste

Marcel F. Williams — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:27:35 EDT

battlecreekenquirer.com

August 19, 2008

Nuclear-waste issue is part of energy debate As the United States pushes to develop new sources of energy, nuclear power once again is a popular topic. Proponents point to the technology's safety record over the past two decades and tout France's ability to generate more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. Sen. John McCain has proposed building as many as 45 new nuclear power reactors in the United States by 2030 to ease our dependence on fossil fuels and meet the demand for electricity. But what to do with used reactor fuel remains a major problem, with the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada a political hot potato. Even if the Yucca Mountain site is developed, it is going to be far costlier than originally estimated, according to a report issued this month by the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2001, DOE officials estimated that the project would cost $57.5 billion over its expected 150-year lifetime. The latest report pegs that cost at $96.2 billion - and only about $16 billion of the increase is due to inflation. More than half of the increase is because current reactors now are expected to operate longer than originally anticipated, meaning that the Yucca Mountain site will have to accept more waste than previously planned. And this month's cost estimate is only for reactors that are now in existence. If new reactors are built, as McCain proposes, the amount of waste requiring disposal would increase proportionately. Yucca Mountain's capacity might have to be expanded, or a second repository developed. Although the Yucca Mountain repository as proposed could house as much as 122,000 tons of waste, Congress has mandated that it be limited to 77,000. There already are about 64,000 tons of used reactor fuel at commercial power plants in 33 states waiting to be shipped to Nevada. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, isn't expected to decide on the Energy Department's application for a Yucca Mountain permit for three to four years. Clearly, many questions remain unanswered about dealing with nuclear waste. As Energy Department officials acknowledge, the spent fuel cannot remain in temporary storage facilities indefinitely. But how and where it is permanently stored needs to be a primary consideration in shaping our future nuclear energy policy.

Energy Independence from the Petroleum Fuel Economy

Marcel F. Williams — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:23:30 EDT

It is time for the US to begin the transition towards completely ending our dependence on the petroleum fuel economy. The use of petroleum not only contributes to global warming but off shore drilling also threatens our pristine coastlines. With more than 700 billion dollars of our national wealth going to foreign countries on an annual basis, our dependence on the petroleum economy also threatens the future prosperity our country.

Obama needs to address the petroleum crisis head on at the National Democratic Convention by advocating that the US rapidly begin the transition from a petroleum based carbon-dioxide polluting fuel economy towards a clean carbon-neutral synthetic fuel economy. And in order to do this, he needs to firmly state that this is going to require massive private and public investments not only in transportation fuel efficiency but also through carbon free and carbon neutral transportation fuel production through biomass, wind, solar, and nuclear energy.

While it may be politically correct within the Democratic Party to exclude any mention of nuclear energy as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, most Americans and especially political independents are looking to support the candidate with the most rational plan to achieve energy independence. And most independence believe that nuclear power should be part of that strategy.

Electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power could contribute up to a third of our total current transportation energy needs if all of our gasoline vehicles were plug-in-hybrids. The Department of Energy believes that biomass could supply up to 30% of our total transportation energy needs by 2030. However, if hydrogen produced through the electrolysis of water via nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power were added to the mix then all of our current and future carbon-neutral transportation fuel needs could be met.

And many have argued that liquid hydrogen could also completely replace jet fuel for future commercial air transportation as a superior non carbon dioxide polluting fuel.

So in less than 25 years, energy independence from the petroleum fuel companies and foreign oil can be achieved if we use Obama's 'all hands of deck' strategy. So we don't need to go down the road of drilling for more carbon-dioxide polluting off-shore oil as advocated by John McCain and the Republicans. But in order to achieve this goal, we have to invest in all non carbon dioxide polluting technologies-- including nuclear power. And Obama needs to clearly state this at the convention, IMO, if he's going to get the votes of a majority of independents in this country who are desperately looking for a rational solution to our transportation energy needs both now and in the future.

Marcel F. Williams

PG&E wins nuclear waste lawsuit against Department of Energy

Marcel F. Williams — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:42:31 EDT

PG&E wins lawsuit against Department of Energy

Posted: Aug 12, 2008 09:12 PM

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Reported by: Courtney Meznarich

PG&E wins a major lawsuit, and says it will share the wealth with customers.

The company won a federal appeal against the Department of Energy.

PG&E sued because it said it spent $200 million to store nuclear waste at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, under the assumption that a national storage facility would be completed by 1998.

But the storage site still isn't ready to accept nuclear waste, so the court ruled that PG&E should get most of its money back.

"Well, PG&E is very pleased with the ruling - obviously, we want to be able to return all that money back to our customers," said Pete Resler, director of communications for PG&E.

PG&E said it is only fair, because California customers shouldered the extra cost of storing nuclear waste.

Its all about energy!

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:15:05 EDT

New Papyrus

Its all about energy

Americans and especially independents are looking at the candidate with the best short term and long term solution to the emerging energy crisis. However, those of us who are also concerned about improving the environment and solving the problem of climate change, also want a solution that eventually eliminates all greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. So Obama needs to address both-- as specifically as possible. And drilling for more oil off the coast-- is not the short term or the long term answer to this problem.

I believe that Obama needs to support the creation of a Federal Synfuel Corporation (FSC) for the production of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. This corporation, IMO, should be partially funded by the annual sale of approximately five percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which should provide billions of dollars annually. Since the money from the reserve would be used to produce clean domestic energy, we would not, in theory, be depleting the reserve but would be creating an clean fuel infrastructure that could make the US totally independent of foreign oil.

As I envision it, the FSC would provide county governments, states and municipalities matching funds for the construction of biowaste to fuel facilities for the production of gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, and aviation fuel in exchange for ten percent of the revenue from the sale of these fuels. And this would provide even more revenue for the synfuel corporation to fund more facilities.

The FSC should also invest heavily in the emerging carbon dioxide from air extraction technologies that would allow us to use nuclear, solar, and wind energy to manufacture gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, and aviation fuel through water electrolysis and and CO2 from air extraction. In this case, I believe that the FSC should set up their own facilities, purchasing off-peak electricity for the manufacture of synfuels. The revenue from the sale of these carbon-neutral fuels should be used to fund the construction of more facilities.

Finally, I believe that the FSC should start ordering its own nuclear, wind, and solar facilities for the production of synfuels. And, again, the revenues from the sale of carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and methanol could be used to fund other facilities until all of our transportation fuel needs completely replace petroleum in the US.

Once this occurs, then perhaps half of the annual revenues can be returned to the public in energy rebates (perhaps several thousand dollars a year for every American) while the other half could be used to construct more synfuel facilities for the export of clean carbon-neutral fuels to other countries which should gradually increase the amount of our annual energy rebates from the FSC.

Marcel F. Williams

Gasoline from Nuclear and Renewable Energy

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:48:51 EDT

New Papyrus

newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com

Gasoline from Nuclear and Renewable Energy

Marcel F. Williams

With more than 700 billion dollars a year of our national wealth being exported to foreign nations in exchange for the importation of foreign oil, the US is gradually impoverishing itself while also continuing to put more greenhouse polluting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. While it is estimated that plug-in-hybrid vehicles and electric cars utilizing current off-peak electric power capacity could reduce US petroleum consumption by at least 35% without adding any new electric capacity to the national grid, this would still require Americans to consume at least 65% of their transportation energy needs through petroleum fuels. Of course, this does not take into account the substantial increases in demand for transportation fuel in the future, during the next few decades, due to increasing US population and economic growth.

Biofuels have long been argued as an alternative solution to the use of petroleum for transportation needs. While most of the US emphasis has been on the controversial production of ethanol, technologies that can covert biomass into gasoline, diesel fuel, methanol, and aviation fuel have existed for decades.

The US Department of Energy reported that up to 30% of our transportation fuel needs could be met through synthetically produced biofuels (gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, methanol, and ethanol) by the year 2030. Agricultural lands including 87 million tons of animal manure could provide nearly 1 billion dry tons of sustainably collectable biomass while also continuing to meet food, feed and export demands. They also reported that forest lands could provide an additional 370 million dry tons of biomass annually. The report argues that an annual biomass supply of more than 1.3 billion dry tons could be accomplished with relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

This however does not include the 250 million tons of solid biowaste produce from the urban areas of the US which would could replace an additional 6% of our petroleum needs. So in total, 36% of our current petroleum needs could be met through biofuels which would amount to approximately half of our petroleum imports.

However, if the US demand for energy for transportation should increase by 50 to 100% over the next few decades then possibly only 18% of our petroleum needs could be met by biofuels in the future. But if electricity could still provide 30% of our transportation energy needs in 2030 via plug-in-hybrids and electric cars then 48% of our future transportation needs could be met by biomass. This would still leave the US dependent on petroleum for over 50% of its transportation needs.

However, a 2007 study published through the National Academy of Sciences showed that, even without plug-in-hybrids and electric vehicles, all of our current transportation fuel needs could be met through biofuels if hydrogen from nuclear, wind, and solar were added to the mix. This would more than triple the amount of synthetic gasoline, diesel fuel, methanol, and aviation fuel produced in the US. We might, therefore, be able to provide more than 80% of our transportation fuel needs in a ground transportation system dominated by plug-in-hybrids and electric vehicles.    This, however, would require a substantial increase in our nuclear and wind capacity in order to produce the hydrogen component for enhanced biofuel production.

There are new emerging technologies, however, that are capable of extracting carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Such technologies would allow the US to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel and methanol through nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power without the need for any biomass component. Scientist at the Los Alamos labs have recently proposed a concept for using nuclear power or wind power plants to produce gasoline and other transportation fuels. In order for these technologies to completely replace petroleum, it would require increasing nuclear power by about ten times current capacity or increasing wind power by more than 200 times current capacity. But if transportation fuel needs doubled within the next few decades then nuclear power plants would have to be increased at least 20 times while wind power   would have to be increased 400 times current capacity. However, increasing our nuclear and wind capacity even further might allow the US not only to become totally independent of petroleum but might also enable the US to be a major exporter of clean carbon-neutral fuels which could help lower greenhouse gases around the world.

So it is clear that the US will have to dramatically increase its nuclear, wind, and biomass capacity in order to become truly energy independent from foreign fuels.   Such carbon-neutral synthetic fuels would finally end greenhouse gas pollution from our nation's transportation system. And a synthetic fuel economy would also finally end this country's dependence on foreign oil and the petroleum fuel economy! It would also mean that the 700 billion dollars that was once annually leaving America's shores would now be flowing right back into the US economy as a-- titanic-- annual stimulus.

It will be a tall order over the next few decades to move this nation from a petroleum fuel economy to a nuclear and renewable synthetic fuel economy. But it is most certainly doable for the most advanced industrial nation on Earth especially one that can so easily throw away hundreds of billions of dollars annually on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

REFERENCES

G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

F.J. Martin and WL Kubic, Green (2007) Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November (www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf)

Michael Kintner-Meyer, Kevin Schneider, Robert Pratt, (2007) IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND REGIONAL U.S. POWER GRIDS PART 1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Pacific Northwest National Laboratory November, (www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf)


Agrawal, R, Singh, N R, Ribeiro, F H , Delgass, W N , (Mar 2007) Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (12), p.4828-4833, (www.pnas.org/content/104/12/4828.full)

Robert D. Perlack, Lynn L. Wright, Anthony F. Turhollow, Bryce J. Stokes,Donald C. Erbach, Robin L. Graham, (2005)BIOMASS AS FEEDSTOCK FOR A BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS INDUSTRY: THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF A BILLION-TON ANNUAL SUPPLY Oak Ridge National Laboratory A Joint Study Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf)

K. Schultz, L. Bogart, G. Besenbruch, L. Brown, R. Buckingham, M. Campbell, B. Russ, and B. Wong HYDROGEN AND SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBON FUELS – A NATURAL SYNERGY General Atomics Poster (bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/H2__Synfuel_poster.pdf)

Robert E Uhrig, (2007) Replacing Transportation Fuels with Nuclear Energy NUCLEAR ENERGY REVIEW (www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/2771/Uhrig.pdf)

Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air (www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf)

First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company, (2007) Earth Institute News Archive, 04/24/07(www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2007/story04-24-07.php)

McCain says he voted for Bush Policies

Marcel F. Williams — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:58:03 EDT

Those ads that show McCain saying 'in his own words' that he voted for George Bush policies 90% of the time should be shown in various forms on television-- over and over and over again-- all over the country!

Those anti-McCain ads are extremely effective, IMO!

The Delta Clipper

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:01:49 EDT

One of NASA's biggest mistakes, IMO, was not properly supporting and funding the Delta Clipper VTOVL (vertical take off vertical landing) program back in the 90s. If an Obama administration could go back and seriously support and appropriately fund this reusable space vehicle concept, I think it would revolutionize manned space travel and capture the public's imagination like no other NASA spacecraft ever has. And this would be a vehicle that would be extremely attractive to private industry and even to the space tourism industry. The Delta Clipper could also be used as an experimental rapid intercontinental transport vehicle since it would be capable to traveling to any point on the planet within less than 45 minutes; much larger versions in the future could therefore transport dozens or perhaps hundreds of passengers and their luggage anywhere on Earth in less than an hour instead of those agonizing 15 to 20 hour over seas flights.

The Delta Clipper concept was designed to take off and land practically anywhere and be fueled by liquid hydrogen and oxygen which could be produced by a simple water electrolysis facility. It would have been fundamentally used to conveniently transport people or small satellites into low earth orbit. But basically the same vehicle could also be used to shuttle astronauts from Mars orbit to the martian surface and from the surface of Mars back into martian orbit. It could also be used as a heavy cargo OTV (orbital transport vehicle) easily capable of transporting hundreds of tons from LEO to lunar orbit if fully fueled in orbit.

Even if this vehicle were only capable of launching 4 metric tons into orbit, that would be enough to place at least 2 pilots plus 6 passengers into LEO (rule of thumb that it takes 1000 lbs of payload structural mass for each passenger). And many have argued that it would reduce payload cost by a factor of ten.

The unmanned experimental DC-X1 only required two individuals to launch it while an expendable launcher requires hundreds of individuals. The DC-X required a ground grew of seven while an expendable launcher requires a ground crew of thousands.

Unfortunately, this concept was not a vehicle of NASA origin and after its initial success, NASA reluctantly took on the project with minimal funding. Adding to the complexity of the project was the military requirement that it also be used as a polar orbiting vehicle which would have required a nose-first reentry. This of course would be unnecessary if the vehicle were used solely for civilian transport to normal equatorial orbits such as to the international space station.

There are those who argue that this type of simple space craft properly funded, it could be ready for flight in less than 5 years. This vehicle would be much better than NASA's far more expensive Ares 1 human launch vehicle concept.

So I hope Obama takes a new an positive look at the Delta Clipper concept.

More info on the Delta Clipper program and concept can be found in the links below:

www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcy.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-Y

media.armadilloaerospace.com/DCX/

www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm

www.hvcn.org/info/a2s2/restofus.html