Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

  1. #1 A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    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/html3mont...ey.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-GOL...peech.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/...r_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..._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/...0Explained.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?cha...9683414B7FFE9F
    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/di...tion/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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 More Nano solar Tech 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    In two other approaches:
    What do you all think of this direct solar to hydrogen technology? I was told they have hit 10% efficiency and solved mass production problems. Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html

    And This company:
    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, full spectrum PV efficiency and promise of low cost :
    UB News Services-solar nano-dots
    http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-exe...ticle=75000009

    Cheers,
    Erich J. Knight


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Thank you, Erich for considering my requests!

    Suncone technology is truly remarkable! The collector is very, very remarkable. The kinetic pump I have reservations about, although I can see how it would have some amazingly wonderful uses for removing impurities and/or salt from water (i.e. like when hurricanes blow threw). Additional reservations would be the water source. If the water is being pumped from rivers and oceans, what about environmental issues? If there were some way to contain and recycle the water this system would seem perfect.

    The cost effectiveness of this system would certainly quell any reservations I may have had about utilizing it as a large scale energy source, as 4 cents per kilowatt hour is very enticing! LOL It is AMAZINGLY cost effective to establish. One hesitation I can see where there could be room for some improvement is suncone can only bear a few cloudy days where as the Solar Power Tower can operate up to a week. Suncone did very well with safety issues.

    The solar to electric efficiency of 30% is quite remarkable. My attention has been diverted to nuclear fast-breeder fusion technology as demonstrated in another thread on this board. While I am still trying to find information pertaining to fast-breeder reactors as an energy source, I have read they are only 20% electric efficiency. They are also quite costly to establish. If you have any information pertaining to this and do not mind sharing, I would be interested as well.

    Here is an additional suncone link:
    www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html

    There was another link to an article I found, but you are already familiar with it! LOL

    Nanotech is so absolutely amazing. I have been following it since before it became a well known discipline. The link you shared is great! It will be a really momentous occasion when someone creates a nano-paint or wallpaper in which colors and patterns could be changed to fit one’s mood! LOL Especially to be appreciated by those of us who work in front of the same wall day-in and day-out! (just teasing a bit, hope it’s okay)

    Thanks again, Erich.

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Neutrons in Lightning & Oil use & vander Waals inter 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    Dear Folks:

    To really gain some perspective on the energy problem , and understand what a tough nut it is, read this reply by Uncle AL, from another Sci-forum:

    "Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

    1.74x10^10 boe/year, or
    2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or
    1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

    ...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind

    The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

    You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

    What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

    mi^2
    Area, Modality
    ====================
    1000 biomass
    300 wind
    60 solar
    0.3 nuclear

    3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

    Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?

    --------------------
    Uncle Al
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
    (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf "



    Now ya know how big the problem is!!
    My reply to UncleAl:

    "Dear Uncle Al,
    Your logic and math are impeccable, However you seem to ignore the macro energy equation.
    All fossil and nuke fuels ultimately add to the heat load of the biosphere while most of the solar / wind / thermal conversion technologies (except geothermal) recycle solar energy instead of releasing sequestered solar energy. This is the goal and definition of sustainability, not over loading the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

    At least you seem not to take account of this, and I feel you dismiss the rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity, not to mention P-B11 fusion.
    From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs. ( Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html )

    And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-ex...rticle=75000009 )"



    Recently I found this technology page on the Suncone, Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.htmland
    The Claim of a 50 MW array producing at $.046/KWhr is the best I've seen for solar at this level of development, and the PV solar roofing technology they are acquiring looks solid too.

    And This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2...-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . I sent it to Clint Seward and here's his reply:

    "There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.
    It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event. (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this). I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.
    The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."

    Science News Daily http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-6724.html
    Wow..............1 million g's...............I had never seen van der Waals interactions measured in these terms.......and shouldn't it be considered " van der Waals forces" (london & Waals) because the electron density in a molecule is redistributed by proximity to another pole? Are individual atoms a different story?
    As you can see I only know enough to be dangerous or look ignorant.
    At any rate this gives you an appreciation of the powers in the Nano and Quantum worlds


    A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

    Cheers,
    Erich J. Knight
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Erich, re your earlier post quoting Uncle Al. Uncle Al is of course living proof that intelligence plus an education do not always equal correct conclusions. Your response to him was a pertinent one.
    You might have added this.
    The surface area of the sphere at the Earth's orbital radius is 1.81 E16.
    The surface area of this sphere intersected by the Earth is 2.01 E08
    The portion of the sun's output interesected by the Earth is 1.11 E-08
    The sun converts 4 billion tons of mass to energy per second
    In one year it converts 1.46 E12 tons
    The Earth intercepts the energy of 1.46 E12 x 1.11 E-08 converted tons: 1.62 E04
    The amount of this incident energy required to meet US energy needs is 0.007%.
    Even if I am out somewhere by a factor of 100, then the needs would be met by less than 0.1% of the energy falling on the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 GE chimes in 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    81
    Thank you Ophiolite for the help with Uncle, I posted your additions to my other forums.


    Dear folks:
    Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

    He's referring to a power point presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion . 1.) Prometheus II , 2.) Field Revered Configuration, and 3.) Focus Fusion http://www.focusfusion.org/about.html

    It's by Vincent Page a technology officer at GE.
    Email me and I'll send it to anyone interested.


    from : Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
    | Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075
    | Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ -;* http://www.neoteric-research.org/
    | http://www.prometheus2.net/%A0%A0%A0------ mailtopmk@plasmak.com


    "Erich,
    Thanks for your update,

    A friend of mine, Bruce Pittman, who is a member of the AIAA, recently sent me a copy of the attached paper by Vincent Page of GE. Please keep in mind that I have never communicated with Vincent, but he found our concept to have the highest probability of success for achieving a commercial fusion power plant of any that he examined.

    A program manager at DARPA submitted a POM for sizeable funding of extended research on our concept, both here and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, it didn't stay above this year's cut line for the budget funding priorities.

    BTW, I agree with Cox that the analysis done by Chen does not fit the criteria of the EST plasmoid that Clint produces. The poloidal component of current in his toroid dominates his topology, which means that the corresponding toroidal field, which is only produced within the torus, also dominates. Consequently, the outward pressure on the EST current shell must be balanced by some external inward force. The toroidal component of current is weak and cannot produce the external poloidal magnetic pressure that would bring the toroid into stable equilibrium. If the plasmoid lasts for .6 seconds without change of shape or brightness level, then it must be continuously formed with his electron beam source. Otherwise, the plasma would decompose within microseconds.

    By comparison, our PLASMAK magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) have negligible change in shape, size or luminosity over a period of one or two hundred milliseconds after the initial tens of microseconds impulse that forms them has ceased. That may not sound like much of a lifetime, but compare that to the decomposition of Lawrence Livermore's spheromak plasma within 60 microseconds. The other interesting thing is that we have recently produced PMKs of 40 cm diameter (under work sponsored by DOD), and with the installation of our new, additional fast rise capacitors, we expect to obtain lifetimes of seconds.

    Cheers,
    Paul "




    Cheers
    Erich Erich
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •