by Marcel F. WilliamsFossil 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.HydrogenBecause 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 hydrogenAlternatively, 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) + H2OMethanol 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) + 2H2OAnd methane can also be converted into diesel and jet fuels via Fischer-Tropsch and hydrocracking processes.Mechanical extraction of atmospheric CO2Plants 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 O2Some 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 References1. 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 Vacuums4. Snatching Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere5. CO2 capture from air6. 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, 04/24/078. 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 Solution12. The Case for Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air13. Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air14. 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 Poster15. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany
NEW PAPYRUS
The online magazine of science, technology, socioeconomics, and politics
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Monday, October 20, 2008
Natural Radiation
by Marcel F. WilliamsHumans 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 potassium0.35 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Louisiana1.20 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Colorado0.30 mSv Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of Texas1.15 mSV Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of South Dakota0.07 mSv Annual radiation exposure to while living in a stone, brick, or concrete building0.03 mSv Annual radiation exposure while living near the gate of a nuclear power plant0.01 Annual USA dose from nuclear fuel and nuclear power plants1.15 mSv Annual radiation exposure while working at a nuclear power plant2.0 mSv Annual human internal radiation due to radon1.0 mSv Annual Limit of dose from all DOE facilities to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker5.0 mSv Annual USA NRC limit for visitorsIonizing Radiation Levels (acute):0.o5 mSV One round-trip to Paris-New York0.46 mSv off-site exposure to the Three Mile Island core meltdown accident2.2 mSv Average dose from upper gastrointestinal diagnostic X-ray series50 mSv Lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults100 mSv USA EPA acute dose level estimated to increase cancer risk 0.8%500-1000 mSv Low-level radiation sickness due to short-term exposurePersons 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 Links1. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany2. Ionizing radiation (Wikipedia)3. Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor4. Martin D. Ecker, and Norton J. Bramesco (1981) Radiation: All you need t know about to stop worrying...or to start, Vintage Books, New York5. Radiation and Life Posted by Marcel F. Williams at 12:53 AM 0 comments:
by Marcel F. WilliamsOne 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 oreNuclear 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 suppliesBut 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
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
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
TEES researchers and Byogy Renewables, Inc., are working to turn everyday waste into gasoline.
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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
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 A non-conventional coal blend is being used in S. Africa By CHRIS KAHNAssociated 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:
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.
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.
New Papyrus
newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com
Gasoline from Nuclear and Renewable Energy Marcel F. WilliamsWith 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. REFERENCESG. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, GermanyF.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)
I posted about the water car some time ago in Japan. It was shot down and thrown out.
I thought to myself maybe they are right. But I now have video of the Japanese company actually demonstrating the way this works. Why not throw it out there. They are driving them. Both the H.A.W. van and the Genpax actually run on the road. Why not just totally derail the competition if its really true. I dont want to hear the dismiss it because I am a an American blah blah blah scientist. This is not American science. We need to quit thinking we have the corner on figuring things out. What is wrong with putting this on the table too. Here below the Japanese are showing how this process works. Japanese water powered car process explained. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRvqAggvss&feature=related I think these this is a translation of what is being said. .In this white box, there is basically the same system. In addition to what you saw, there are such things as a regulator device, in order to supply a certain voltage current, and a pump that pumps water. They're packaged into one system. In this system, the water supply is automated. By simply switch it on, water is being sent by a pump (just as shown over there earlier). You can hear the sound of pumping water. Later, a car will be show. The car has the exact same generator system. Our system can be used as shown for home usage, as well as for vehicles like cars. There is about 2 liters of water, and runs for about 7 hours [for the appliances here]. Basically water is recycled. This gauge shows the level of water here. We pour the water in here. To make it more visible, we are using colored water. We would like to demonstrate the basic mechanism of this system that our company has invented. Please take a look at this. As shown in an earlier diagram, you see a stack of cells, lined up, sandwiched together.As a safety precaution, we put the cover back on during the demonstration, as electrical currents flow here. So, you have seen that there is no hydrogen tank or ocean water in the box. We will pour water into this box. If water enters this box, it creates electricity. We'll verify this with the voltmeter. In order to pour water, we use this little pump. This pump is used only to move water. It has nothing to do with the creation of electricity. After the water is poured, the pump will be detached. Today we're using so-called "seiseisi" [purified, manufactured for lab usage] water. Water in the cup is pumped into the box. You will see that water comes out from here, at which point we will stop pumping water. Usually 25V, but today it is 24V.
Below is a video animation that shows how the water that is poured in is turned into hydrogen fuel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YYhsw9hbOo What is wrong with this? Surely one of you is a scientist that can go check this out instead of just knocking it in the head. Oh that dont work because I am an overconfident elite scientist that knows everything under the sun. Here are the van and car both running. New Car that run only on water no fuel !! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HivxQN_G8tA&feature=related Genepax - Water Car from Japan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjVVPeyDKk
Selling tire guages is nice but if a car that runs on water really works. We are not really going after the problem of both GLOBAL WARMING and OIL CRISIS problems.Lets get real people if this works its game over for OIL. Be bold find out if it works, just not knock it. And if it works then bring it out and tap into the millions of people that are waiting for a bold new fuel to power their house, and life. Lets not let them hide this. So far we have been good at it.
Listen. We all know that the Drill Now campaign is a hoax. Even the initial poll that was used to show that the American people wanted to drill now was a push poll.
The first question was "How concerned are you about rising gas and energy prices?" and the second question was "In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?".
Are you kidding me? (We really need to watch these polling agencies. Did you see the "Likely Voter" poll that gave McCain a 4 point national lead? It was likely another bogus poll. See Here.)
The poll conditioned the responders to the pain at the pump and then gave them the impression that a drilling now would reduce that pain. It was a basic push poll.
Here are some additional ways to go after McCain on this energy issue.
1. Mock McCain on the Off Shore Drilling Hoax Premise: McCain doesn’t agree to drill in Alaska. He states that its a national emergency. He states that he will always protect America from all threats foriegn and domestic. Well if he truly believes that Off Shore Oil Drilling will bring down prices and it will help the American people why not drill in Anwar.
Mocks: What do the polar bears have on McCain? Why would he turn his back on the American people for polar bears and caribou? If we are going to take risks with the environment for oil, don’t the coasts of Florida and California mean more to the American people than a tundra in Alaska that 99.99% of American’s have never visited?
Hammer: He doesn’t want to drill in Anwar, because the Drill Now Campaign is a hoax and he thinks the American people are stupid enough to believe him. Even the Bush administration states that there will be no effect on prices.
According to McCain and Bush, the effect is psychological. Just to get elected, they are willing to say anything.
Solution: Drill now is not the answer. We need to need to be oil independent. Obama is investing $150 Billion over ten years to build our economic security by eliminating oil as our major engine for energy. And he is proposing an energy rebate to all American's to help offset some of the cost to fill up your tank.
There is also another opportunity to erode John McCain’s support from the right. Remember, Bob Barr is on the ballot in a few battleground states and many Republicans are not very happy with him. They are just afraid of Obama.
2. Mock McCain on National Security using the Drill Now Hoax
Premise: Drill Now Campaign is dangerous to our national security. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. all are trying to do us harm and undercut our economy and using oil revenue to do it.
Mock: Why is McCain trying to put this country in danger by sending $700 Billion of our dollars to people who want to kill us and want to do us harm? I thought he loved America and he probably does, but he is willing to fund Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
I thought he loved America. He talks tough, but he wants to continue to pay for their weapons, suicide bombers, military, and economic subterfuge with our oil purchases.
What do they have on him? He seems patriotic, but I just don’t get it? (He would blow his top if this hit the media)
Solution: Drill now is not the answer. We need to be oil independent, not just energy independent. Obama is investing $150 Billion over ten years to build our economic security by eliminating oil as our major engine for energy. He is also providing an energy rebate for families.
What do you think? What are some other ways to mock McCain on his backward energy plan?
