[NevadaGhosts]

White House Budget Slashes Clean Energy

The President's proposed budget calls for significant cuts in renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean air, and climate change related-programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies.

artivle
Better break out that gas mask... your'e gonna need it.

[linlithgowoil]

they probably dont want to spend money on stuff that wont really have much of an impact. if they do not want to lower their living standards, then renewables are not the way forward. the only way forward would be these plans:-

1. grab all the remaining oil in the world for yourself. works short term, but long term does not work. though, they may think that this will buy time for :-

2. invent new forms of energy - fusion etc.

thats the only way forward if you want to keep increasing your energy consumption.

[RealityCheckBounced]

"significant cuts in renewable energy, "

Great! Were running out of energy so what do we do? Cut the programs that solve the problem! Thats genius! (How's come no one ever thunk of that before?)

[Kingcoal]

The reason why these programs are considered failures is that in the 30 years they've been in existance, they have not been able to provide a substitute for oil/gas. Of course the cavet is that oil/gas have been super cheap. I think that Biodiesel and coal derived diesel will have some sucess as prices rise.

[Frank]

I hope you're all writing your elected representatives to complain about this. It's pretty stupid, but typical of the Bush administration. They plan to keep the Pentagon budget pretty stable for this year then continue to grow next year on out...

The writing's on the wall, isn't it?

[Graeme]

USDA Guarantees up to $200 Million in Clean Energy Loans

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on July 15th that it is now offering $11.4 million to guarantee loans to farmers, ranchers, and small rural businesses for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The USDA estimates that the funds could guarantee up to $200 million in loans for such projects. Eligible renewable energy projects are those that produce energy or hydrogen from biomass, geothermal, solar, or wind energy sources. The loans can cover at most 50 percent of the project costs, can range from $5,000 to $10 million, and can extend up to 20 years. The loan guarantee funds will be set aside until August 31st, after which they'll be reallocated to the USDA's grant program.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_de ... ws_id=9210

[Graeme]

The world's first industrial-scale clean energy power plant to generate "carbon-free" electricity from hydrogen could be built in Aberdeenshire. The £330m project will split natural gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen will fuel a new power station to be built near the existing power station at Peterhead.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) will then be liquefied and piped underground for storage in BP's Miller oil field where it can also help to recover more oil.
Oil giant BP PLC and its partners Royal Dutch/Shell, ConocoPhillips and Scottish & Southern Energy PLC are planning to build the 350 megawatt power station, which could come on stream in 2009. The injection of carbon dioxide could increase oil recovery by up to 40 million barrels and extend the field's life by 15-20 years, BP said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4638409.stm

[Devil]

Journalistic twaddle.

[anthem]

After the liquid CO2 is used for oil extraction, won't it eventually find its way into the atmosphere? I mean, sure you can pump it underground, but I think the CO2 is only temporarily being sequestered in the ground. Not sure about the geophysics of all this, but then of course, I'm a chemist.

Another feel-good story that will do nothing to help us achieve sustainability.

[EnergySpin]

Takes one good earthquake and it will burp in the atmosphere
James Lovelock the geobiochemistry expert and the person who proposed the Gaia Theory is against the idea of carbon sequestration using depleted oil fields. His argument has to do with the CO2+H20->HCO3- + H+ reaction
Having seen the space requirements for a similar project (i.e. compressed gas electricity storage) it doesn't it seem to be a particularly clever idea.

There are other ways to capture the carbon via photosynthesis i.e. the CO2 is shuttled to (closed) tanks where is captured by small bacteria.
Green Fuel Technologies is even selling such a system. Note it is only 40% effective though ....

[FoxV]

well the nice part is that at least using fuel cells makes the conversion of Natural gas to Electricty more efficient as steam turbines are only around 15% efficient and fuel cells are typically 60%.

however how much does all the messing around with CO2 take away from the process (and how much of that CO2 will actually stay in the ground)

and at $1/W, this is pretty expensive plant compared a typical power plant's $0.25/W

oh well I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[gego]

So when they burn the hydrogen, does it not combine with oxygen? Where does the oxygen come from, the atmosphere? Is that good?

[Devil]

See http://www.cypenv.org/Files/sequest.htm if you wish to know about sequestration.

[EnergySpin]

See http://www.cypenv.org/Files/sequest.htm if you wish to know about sequestration.

Stop burning fuels come to mind
Seriously though, we are missing close to 18% of the carbon released after the industrial age started. Probably ended up as limestone when the photosynthetic marine microorgs died. And I would still worry about the consequences of CO2 escaping in the ocean ... acidity and all that.
Of course I could do the calculation about the possible impact on the ocean's pH assuming perfect mixing and estimates of the H20 volume but I'm too lazy

[SolarDave]

well the nice part is that at least using fuel cells makes the conversion of Natural gas to Electricty more efficient as steam turbines are only around 15% efficient and fuel cells are typically 60%.

Hey, FoxV, your comment made me think. Google displays many "combined cycle" power plants with efficiencies in the 50-55% range. Not much of an advantage for fuel cells. They may be cleaner but they don't seem to be that much more efficient than a contemporary power plant. Sorry to be a bit OT.

[ChumpusRex]

Google displays many "combined cycle" power plants with efficiencies in the 50-55% range. Not much of an advantage for fuel cells. They may be cleaner but they don't seem to be that much more efficient than a contemporary power plant

Combined cycle gas plants are common, but relatively expensive.

However, while SOFC (solid oxide fuel cells) can indeed achieve approx 60% efficiency on their own, it is possible to use them in a combined cycle system: you take waste heat from the fuel cells and use it to drive a steam turbine. Potenially you could get efficiencies of over 70% with such a system.

Of course, there is the issue of cost. I shudder to think what it might be.

[Devil]

well the nice part is that at least using fuel cells makes the conversion of Natural gas to Electricty more efficient as steam turbines are only around 15% efficient and fuel cells are typically 60%.

And where did that little gem of bullshit come from? The average overall efficiency of a coal burning power station from the chemical energy in the coal to the electricity pumped out is about 30% and that takes into account the fluidisation of the coal bed, the boiler, waste heat in flue gases, precipitation and scrubbing, the turbine, the condenser, the boiler water treatment, the alternator, the control systems, the transformers etc. So, it is physically impossible for the turbine to have an efficiency of 15%. The same applies to NG, although the latter will cause directly and indirectly more GHG emissions.

[erich]

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

Over the past year many luminaries have made clarion calls for a concerted effort to solve the energy crisis. It is a crisis, with 300 million middle class Chinese determined to attain the unsustainable lifestyle we have sold them. Their thirst for oil is growing at 30% a year, and can do nothing but heat the earth and spark political conflict.

We have been heating the earth since the agricultural revolution with the positive result of providing 10,000 years of warm stability. But since the Industrial revolution we have been pushing the biosphere over the brink. Life forces have done this before -- during the snowball earth period ( Cryogenian Period ) in the Neoproterozoic toward the end of the Precambrian - but that life force was not sentient!

Thomas Freedman of the New York Times has called for a Manhattan Project for clean energy The New York Times> Search> Abstract. Richard Smalley, one of the fathers of nanotechnology, has made a similar plea. We are at the cusp in several technologies to fulfilling this clean energy dream. All that we need is the political leadership to shift our fiscal priorities.

I feel our resources should be focused in three promising technologies:

1. Nanotechnology: The exploitation of quantum effects is finally being seen in these new materials. Photovoltaics (PV) are at last going beyond silicon, with many companies promising near-term breakthroughs in efficiencies and lower cost. Even silicon is gaining new efficienies from nano-tech: Researchers develop technique to use dirty silicon, could pave way for cheaper solar energy
New work on diodes also has great implications for PV, LEDs and micro-electronics Nanotubes make perfect diodes (August 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb

Thermionics: The direct conversion of heat to electricity has been at best only 5% efficient. Now with quantum tunneling chips we are talking 80% of carnot efficiency. A good example is the proposed thermionic car design of Borealis. ( http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN ... h.6=04.pdf ) . The estimated well-to-wheel efficiency is over 50%. This compares to 13% for internal combustion and 27% for hydrogen fuel cells. This means a car that has a range of 1500 miles on one fill up. Rodney T. Cox, president of Borealis, has told me that he plans to have this car developed within two years. Boeing has already used his Chorus motor drives http://www.chorusmotors.gi/.
on the nose gear of it's 767. (Boeing Demonstrates New Technology for Moving Airplanes on the Ground http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0801a.html )
The Borealis thermocouple power chips http://www.powerchips.gi/index.shtml (and cool chips) applied to all the waste heat in our economy would make our unsustainable lifestyle more than sustainable.
You may find an extensive discussion on thermo electric patents at: Nanalyze Forums - Direct conversion of heat to electricity http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.as ... 1006&#2686

2. Biotechnology: Since his revolutionary work on the human genome project, Craig Venter has been finding thousands of previously unknown life forms in the sea and air. His goal is to use these creatures to develop the ultimate energy bug to produce hydrogen and or use of their photoreceptor genes for solar energy. http://www.venterscience.org/ Imagine a bioreactor in your home taking all your waste, adding some solar energy, and your electric and transportation needs are fulfilled.

3. Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts and maybe bubble fusion - Is bubble fusion back? (July 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/8 )
.
There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as fallows:

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors)."

and

"Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices)."

EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.

It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Ima ... lained.pdf
The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the May issue of Scientific American,
Click
Dwyer's paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at Electron Power Systems

Clint sent Joe and I his new paper on a lightning charge transport model of cloud to ground lightning (he did not want me to post it to the web yet). Joe was supportive and suggested some other papers to consider and Clint is now in re-write.

It may also explain Elves, blue jets, sprites and red sprites, plasmas that appear above thunder storms. After a little searching, this seemed to have the best hard numbers on the observations of sprites.

Dr. Mark A. Stanley's Dissertation
http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/disse ... /main.html

And may also explain the spiral twist of some fulgurites, hollow fused sand tubes found in sandy ground at lightning strikes.


The learning curve is so steep now, and with the resources of the online community, I'm sure we can rally greater support to solve this paramount problem of our time. I hold no truck with those who argue that big business or government are suppressing these technologies. It is only our complacency and comfort that blind us from pushing our leaders toward clean energy.


Erich J. Knight
[email protected]

[skyemoor]

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

I feel our resources should be focused in three promising technologies:

1. Nanotechnology:

Plausible, though so much of this is still in basic research that we would be looking 20+ years for significant deployment

Thermionics: The direct conversion of heat to electricity has been at best only 5% efficient.

There are operating units right now that achieve 22%. And there is no research and development needed to put up more
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/ren ... ermal.html

Now with quantum tunneling chips we are talking 80% of carnot efficiency.

There are still other losses (reflective, absorptive, thermal conductive, etc) that will drop this figure by a quarter at least.

2. Biotechnology: Since his revolutionary work on the human genome project, Craig Venter has been finding thousands of previously unknown life forms in the sea and air. His goal is to use these creatures to develop the ultimate energy bug to produce hydrogen and or use of their photoreceptor genes for solar energy. http://www.venterscience.org/ Imagine a bioreactor in your home taking all your waste, adding some solar energy, and your electric and transportation needs are fulfilled.

Sounds enticing, but vague and abstract. Also sound like its in the early basic research stage. Fine for 20+ years, but we need to embark on a major clean energy deployment now.

3. Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts and maybe bubble fusion - Is bubble fusion back? (July 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/8 )

Same comment as above. If these projects siphon money away from a real Manhattan Project of deploying functioning renewable energy systems, then we end up sliding uncontrollably down the backslope of PostPO.

We can deploy large arrays of MW windturbines, Solar Power Arrays/Towers, solar hot water on everyone's roofs, hydropower, biomass, etc with the resources we now possess. If 25 years from now, some of the above technologies has been proven through significant testing and piloting, then so much the better.

Until then, we can't lose focus or we lose it all.

[Heineken]

Personally, I don't think exotic technologies are going to save the day. For one thing, they tend to move forward very slowly and cumulatively (for that's how science generally works). By analogy, how many studies have been published holding out significant hope for a cure for cancer? And yet the cure rates for most forms of that disease haven't budged, although management has certainly improved. For another thing, technologies aren't going to replace cheap energy (as we've enjoyed it with oil & gas) with equivalent amounts of cheap energy, much less increasing amounts of cheap energy (which is what our entire financial system of "growthism" is predicated on). Technologies are going to replace abundant cheap energy with smaller amounts of far more expensive energy. A miracle could happen, but the Nazis also thought a miracle (a secret weapon) would save them. Miracles normally don't happen. So I think our goose is probably cooked.

Instead of investing trillions in exotic technologies, we need to spend what's left of our capital on reengineering how we live so that we simply need less energy. We need a Manhattan Project to redesign our communities and houses, replace industrial agriculture with local organic agriculture, break our addiction to the automobile, and get a handle on the population problem. We need to establish a new relationship with nature that sees it not as the adversary but as our companion in life.