A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

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 http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html3month/2004/040902.Smalley.energy.html.
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 http://www.physorg.com/news5831.html
New work on diodes also has great implications for PV, LEDs and micro-electronics Nanotubes make perfect diodes (August 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/11

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-AGE-IBM.Speech.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/2005/q3/nr_050801a.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.asp?TOPIC_ID=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 )

On the big science side I do have hopes for the LDX : http://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/.

.
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/Images/Ball Lightning Explained.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,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00032CE5-13B7-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F
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/dissertation/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
shengar@aol.com
(540) 289-9750

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you paint a too rosy picture. I don't think it will be that easy, but I hope I am wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Technology isn't the same thing as energy. There won't be a replacement for fossil fuels any time soon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would have to disagree spidergoat. I believe there will be a replacement for fossil fuels within the next twenty years. #1, technology exponentially grows: the birth of new technology is used in development of the next birth of technology.

Fossil fuels are simply old.... the technology is ancient, no matter how you look at it.... think of the billions of dollars and time and supplies being spent on oil rigs, super tankers and refining facilitys. Are you try to say that no one is going to jump at a way to produce energy using half the equipment, half the man power, and half the trouble as fossil fuels?

Fossil Fuels are on the way out... it has been for a long time... the only thing keeping it is an inability for the economy to take the stresses of a large scale change to something better.

 

I think project #1 will have a lot of impact. Isn't there also that single-crystal technology for photovoltaic cells?

 

Use of fossil fuels has not been decreasing, quite the opposite. There is no source of energy with such relative ease of collection, distribution, and use in combustion engines. Technology is not energy. Technology cannot replace energy. There is technology to do alot of things that don't make sense on a grand scale. Only the hubris of growing up in an energy rich era could fuel such fantasies.

 

once the oil starts to drop off, and approaces $10 a gallon or more, those power sources that are more expensive now will be considered, then because the economy would become dependent on those technologies, they'll be cheaper and more grand scale.

I heard somewhere they're trying to make a spray-on solar cell system. you could get a couple gallons of spray-on paneling, layer your roof with it, make a couple kilowatts for the house, dedicate a larger area of your yard next to a stream or something, maybe even have enough to start a small electrolysis plant to help fuel your hydrogen car.

 

But to actually talk about the point of the thread title, is there actually any need for a Manhattan Project? Is there a need for a co-ordinated, centrally (federally) funded effort? All this research is going on, and what is published is from scientific research establishments such as universities. In addition there must be a great deal of research work going on in the oil companies and the engine companies as well, only being commercial it's mainly kept secret - although what has been fairly public is the fact that it has been the car industry that has done the most work in the direction of Fuel Cells.

Let the market take care of the details, they will do it best anyway, and they've got the money to spend.

 

The market will not solve the problem. Even if solar panels become cheap, and fuel cells ubiquitous, they will not replace the energy we now get from fossil fuels. Fuel cells only use hydrogen that is cracked and stored through other methods, it is not a primary source of energy. Solar panels will not run airplanes, and not cars on cloudy days. Without fossil fuels, we will be unable to make storage batteries, which are not too efficient. Without fossil fuels, it may not even be possible to run research facilities, which require endless shipments to maintain, not to mention that most scientists need to commute to the place. We will inevitable move towards a less energy intensive society, as opposed to the happy motoring fantasies of the 1950's.

 

Only the market can solve the problem. It's the market in fossil fuels that is the question in any case. There is a limited amount of fossil fuel available, when it is gone it is gone. Check out those earlier posts, there's considerably more being considered than solar energy, wind energy and fuel cells. (Past fuel cells may have used pre-cracked hydrogen, future ones may use hydrogen derived from the oceans.)

 

After reading "A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy" , on http://www.sciscoop.com/
A newspaper guy,Rupert Leach, Director, Newspath Ltd, from the UK posted me about his talking to the Chairman of Hydrogen Solar, Julian Keable http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html, saying that they will be well over 10% efficiency in the near future with their Tandem Cell™, technology, and that they had initial issues with scale-up, but these seem to have been overcome and they were sounding rather optimistic a few weeks ago.

 

What do you all think of this company's technology?
Barnabus Energy, Inc. (OTC BB : BBSE) Investor Facts http://www.otcfn.com/bbse/report.html
I can't find much on the Suncone, but the solar roofing technology they are acquiring looks solid.

And just coming out of the lab, this looks very strong:
UB News Services-solar nano-dots
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=75000009

Cheers,
Erich J. Knight

 

How many of these new technologies can be built without fossil fuels. Face it as of now, everything on earth, more or less requires fossil fuels in some form at some point in it gathering, manufactoring, and or distrubution. To get away from fossil fuels we have to build everything over from the ground up. Fossil Fuels are to much a part of our lives at the moment, the solution.. is something that escapes me as I type on this keyboard, siting in this chair, enjoying the soft feel of carpet under my feet.. wonder how many barrels it took to make and get them all here???

The problem is HUGE.. it goes to the very core of what human life is on Earth at this time.

 

I found some tech-specs for the suncone, They claim a 50MV array wil produce at $.046 /KWhr !!
Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator
http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html

 

Idea is not new or even as good as older versions. As for $0.046 / KWhr - forget it. Most people do not realize that even if the solar cells were free, the cost of solar power would decrease by less than 50%. The BOS (Balance of System) cost exceed the PV cell costs. Just the cost of converting the DC produced by the PV cells alone far exceeds $0.046 / KWhr.

PV cell efficiency decreases rather rapidly with temperature. If you have a square of hexigonal pannel of many PV cells as the factory made, massproduced "standard unit module" with 4 or 6 fold over triangles that can cover it (protect it on trip to field) and then, in field, fold out like petals of a flower to reflect about 75% more sunlight onto PV cell (at least 30 year old idea - not mine) then the temperature induced drop in efficiency makes add more reflector area not attractive economically, (more or less -depends on details)

Best such desgn is square PV modules with only two square fold-out reflecting pannel, (one as back cover during shipment) are arranged in the field in East -West rows (just enough space between rows for service access) the field is optiumally covered - something imposible to achieve with the 30 year old "new" idea that uses circles and cones and also is temperature/efficiecy limited in the concentration ratio (This in intrinsic to the nature of PV production - for those who know some solid state physics, the "conduction band states get excessivly populated thermally instead of by phono execitation etc.) uses the realestate (cost) less effiently (more BOS cost) etc. etc.

 

Dear Billy T:

First Their proposed 50 MV system is not PV , it's solar thermal to a turbine. Did you even read it?

 

Not carefully. Photo and "cone" in name make my point that circles do not cover field /realestate well as square modules, which can also concentrate sunlight by reflection.

The problem with solar/thermal conversion is built into physics. (Carnot cycle limits vs thermal radiation increases as T^4.) If temperature is high enough for the good thermal conversion then much of the energy absorbed is re radiated as IR back towards the sun.

More than 50 years ago this was well understood and some people tried to put "dichromic mirrors" in in the light path. (They transmit visible but reflect IR.) They tend to be costly, so typically they were installed in partically concentrated light path, but they do absorbe, get hot and crack if sudden shower hits them when hot. (Well defined cloud dropping rain on otherwise sunny day.) or in Hail storms. Thus concept was abandoned long ago as not economically feasible.

I hold a patent, now expired, on an alternative solution to the "Carnot vs Re-radiation" problem. Do not have number easily available but title of invention was "Mass Flow Solar Energy Absorber" (or System- I forget) - Perhaps you can search US Patent office (If that fails, I will give my real name via PM and you can then read in Applied Optices two papers I published there that do the math showing my idea (described beow) will work, but do not tell anything about it as public disclosure starts a 1 year clock running and after that year, you can not get patent.

Here, briefly, is how my idea works:

Very concentrated sunlight enteres axially into the end of central of two concentric tubes. Also at the end pointed to the center of the converging light is a "mass flow" in the annulus between the two tubes. This flow is relative cool having just returned from the thermal engine exhaust. The outer surface of the inner tube is "silvered" so the entering light reflects ( >90%) once and "bounces deeper and deeper" into the tube, losing a little (~5%) of the current energy with each reflection. Thus, the mass flow gets hotter as it progresses further from the entrance end and so does the the region where the light is getting weaker and farther from the entrance apperature.

Strange, but my absorber was made of a mirror tube but almost perfectly "blacK." - Reflected nothing back to the sun, except due to surface imperfection in the inner tube surface, which was glass near the entrance end but gradeded into pure quartz deeper in to the tube where the temperature is too hot for glass to be strong.

There is of course intense black-body radiation deep inside the tube where it is very hot and half of this IR is trying to "mirror" back up the tube and escape, but it is reabsorbed, especially in the region where the quartz has graded back into glass. (You can even "dope" the cool glass near the entrance with an IR only absorber.)

(The Applied Optics papers calculate how the visible is reflected into the tube and how the black body radiation is prevented from escaping, as if they were abstract problems in optics, not soon to be part of a patent disclosue.)

The net effect is you produce a very hot "working fluid" for your heat engine without the excessive re-radiation loss normal associated with any very hot absorber.

I don't want to sound too immodest, but bet I have forgotten more about about thermal conversion of solar energy than your reference knows! He is clearly trying to get investors etc. (Do not be taken in.)

To bore you some more, I will tell about the SO3 "working fluid" preferred in my closed cycle energy system. It enters the "Mass Flow Solar Absorber" then the engine, then returns to the MFSA again.

At a very convenient temperature and only a little above atmospheric pressure (no excessive stress on the not "red hot" quartz tube, but higher density gas helps the economics.) 2SO3 --> 2SO2 + O2, almost completely.

The chemistry is reversed in the heat engine, burning the SO2 with O2, back into SO3 as the working fluid expands against the piston and cools. The now cool again SO3 working fluid returns back to the entrance end of the Mass Flow Solar Absorber, to be decomposed again. The engine is of course hermeticaal sealed (like the motor /compressor of your refrigerator) - the system is completely closed, made of very cheap (compared is pure silicon of PV cells etc) matterials. (Power companies will even pay you to take away the sulpher that has been removed form coal.

Shell and I got close to an agreement, but the "not invented here" syndrom, Shell's lawers etc. and fact back in the lat 60, early 70s oil was very cheap plus fact the actual system was not demonstrated or fully described terminated Shell's interest after a few letters (once idea was into legal dept, and no longer in the enginering and chemists hands.)

Summary: I did not need to fully read his idea. - Been there, done that, 40 years ago.

 

Theres been replacements for fossil fuels for years, it's just they all got shelved because everybody's money was invested in fossil fuels as apposed to renewable sources.

Fossil fuels are made expensive because of its rarity (like Gems, diamonds etc) This is where people make their money because of the markup it's given because of its rarity.
There isn't so much money to be made in renewable sources like Vegetable oil or even processed dried sewerage, thats because it's not as rare and everybody and anybody could potentially start production in it (bringing the prices of a fuel source right down)

Most countries economy are tied directly to oil/fuel and this has been proven in recent months with the increase in price globally, this is another reason why the renewable sources haven't be used because the economies would have to alter their systems to no longer be so oil dependant.

 

wife made me look for something and I found the patent number of my Mass Flow Solar Adsorber patent instead! It is US patent 4033118. See my post one or two back for brief discription of idea.

 

I feel the low cost and low maintainance of the suncone array overcome the limitations you speak of, the numbers look pretty solid to me.
http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html