Hydrogen 5k6o1z

HYDROGEN

DON BONGAARDS

Copyright © 2012 by Don Bongaards.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012919297 ISBN: Hardcover 978-1-4797-3315-6 Softcover 978-1-4797-3314-9 Ebook 978-1-4797-3316-3

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, : Xlibris Corporation 1-888-795-4274 www.Xlibris.com [email protected] 116153

CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter 1 The Oil Problem

Chapter 2 Wrestling for Deck chairs

Chapter 3 A Money-Making Machine

Chapter 4 The Energy Independence Act

Chapter 5 A Brief Overview

Chapter 6 The Big Picture

Chapter 7 Energy Alternatives

Chapter 8 About Hydrogen

Chapter 9 About Water

Chapter 10 About Zeppelins

Chapter 11 Renewable Energy Solutions

Chapter 12 The Jet-stream

Chapter 13 The Thermo-chemical Process

Chapter 14 The Ninth Wonder

Chapter 15 Energy Pathways

Chapter 16 Plan A

Chapter 17 Plan B

Chapter 18 The Consortium

Chapter 19 Enriching the Impoverished

Chapter 20 The Vertical Farm

Chapter 21 Naysayers

Chapter 22 Prophets of Doom

Chapter 23 The Future and Beyond

Chapter 24 Final Comments

Appendix The Rest of the Story

My Background

References

Dedication

This book provides ideas that I believe will make a better world for my grandsons Britt, Stewart, Johnathan, and Evan.

Introduction

Some people who read my book entitled A Sense of Urgency thought that my intent was to help prevent man-made global warming. That assumption could not be farther from the truth. My real intent was to show how the United States could free itself from its dependence upon imported oil and achieve economic growth and prosperity. However, while doing research for the book, it became evident to me that worldwide exponentially increasing consumption of oil was a clear and present danger that needed to be addressed now. The oil consumption projections are staggering and will not be mitigated by conservation and increasing resource projections.

While oil consumption in the United States has generally stabilized, China, India, and other emerging nations are increasing their oil consumption by more than 6 percent each year. While this is happening, the rate of oil discovery is declining, and Middle East oil reservoirs are nearing a “peak” rate of production. Since the United States currently imports about 50 percent of its oil from other countries, the increased rate of global consumption cannot continue without significant consequence. Even if the United States could drill its way out of the problem by finding undiscovered technically recoverable oil, the global problem will still exist, and it is dangerous.

My recommendation is to drill for as much domestic oil and natural gas as fast as possible to help free the United States from its dependency on oil imports but, at the same time, phase in hydrogen as the transportation fuel of the future. Even with a slow and steady forty-year phase in program, hydrogen could eliminate the Middle East portion of our oil imports in ten years.

This sequel updates some aspects of A Sense of Urgency and provides some innovative ideas for generating low-cost renewable energy. But aside from its

continued warning about global oil demand, it provides a practical method of establishing a hydrogen fuel infrastructure that will lower costs at the gas station pump. Since I have made a hobby of predicting the future, the last few chapters of the book delve into some forecasts that you might find interesting and informative, especially with regard to energy and resources needed to sustain our increasing world population.

The book explains why both new oil discovery and implementation of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure will complement each other and get the United States out of its dependence on oil imports in the shortest time possible. Since the United States currently spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year to purchase oil from other countries, it makes sense to me that this money would be better spent in the United States. Better yet, how ing that money to prop up the Social Security program?

Because I have become concerned about the viability of the Social Security program, I am proposing a hydrogen fuel consortium, comprised of Social Security investors that can build the hydrogen infrastructure and potentially save the program from extinction. While this may not be the only way to get the job done, I believe that it should give us food for thought.

The money the United States is spending for imported oil is the greatest transfer of wealth in modern history, and our Social Security program is broken. Let’s fix both problems by increasing our oil production and gradually converting to hydrogen fuel!

I’m not going to keep you in suspense any longer about how this can be done; here is what I propose:

1. Instead of importing oil and transferring an enormous amount of wealth to

other countries, I propose that Social Security contributors eventually become equivalent to the global oil suppliers. In this case, substitute the word oil for hydrogen.

2. Since the US oil companies are currently paying other countries for oil, I would have them buy liquefied hydrogen at a wholesale price of $3 per equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen from a privately owned consortium that is funded by 50 million Social Security investors between the ages of twentyfive and fifty.

3. My walk-before-you-run program—Plan A—provides for 15 percent of US vehicles to run on hydrogen fuel by the end of the tenth year, and 100 percent by the end of the fortieth year.

4. With about 50 million Social Security investors, a significant amount of money could be made available to start and build the hydrogen infrastructure described in this book. As you will see, this amounts to about $3,000 per investor over a ten-year time frame.

5. When the Social Security investors reach the age of sixty-five, they will be assured of the traditional Social Security benefit and in addition, receive a lumpsum bonus ranging from $12 thousand to $50 thousand—inflation adjusted— depending upon the number of years of participation.

6. Because of the sustained nature of the program, as new Social Security contributors reach the age of twenty-five, they will have the option of ing the consortium and also receive the $50 thousand bonus at age sixty-five.

7. Low-interest loans can be made available to low-income earners. Failure to pay the loan back will result in forfeiting all or part of the bonus.

8. The money left over after bonuses are paid will be used to prop up the Social Security program. If the program becomes more aggressive and excess hydrogen is exported to other countries—Plan B—more than 50 percent of the Social Security program could be funded—my estimates assume that Social Security recipients will be increased from today’s 58 million to 80 million forty years from now.

9. All estimates in this book will be expressed in today’s dollars and do not include yearly compound interest or an adjustment for inflation.

This is a long-term program, but so is the Social Security program, thus a logical match. Since the Social Security investors represent a large segment of the US population, they would have the ability to make the program a success. Moreover, since they would be both the suppliers and the consumers of hydrogen fuel, they would have an incentive to accelerate the introduction of hydrogen vehicles, improve hydrogen production efficiencies, and insure the lowest possible selling price at the pump.

Needless to say, the hydrogen program will eventually free the United States from its dependence on oil as a transportation fuel, but a short-run aggressive program of finding more domestic oil is needed now to avert an availability crisis because of our dependence on the global oil supply. As newly discovered oil is phased out in the United States by its hydrogen substitute, the remaining oil will be used for other purposes, such as pharmaceuticals, plastics, lubricants, and asphalt. It can also be exported to meet the global demand. In fact, the use of hydrogen will help to extend the available oil that we do have so that substitute materials can be invented.

While it makes sense to me to have Social Security investors fund this program, it could also be done by private investors or the government. If done by private investors, it would need the government’s commitment and . Although this might be possible, it would end up being the biggest private enterprise in history, and in my opinion, it could become a monopoly that could wield too much power over the government and the price of fuel. Conversely, if it was a government program, there would be too many politicians, special interest groups, and inefficient bureaucracies muddying the water. At least with the Social Security owners being millions of everyday working people who have an interest in both their retirement income and the price of fuel for their vehicles, the chance of price gouging is much less likely. While they would in fact become a very powerful and influential force, they would have a limited scope of interest.

In closing this introduction, perhaps you think that the public is not ready for hydrogen. Well, how receptive do you think they will be when gasoline prices reach $5 or more per gallon because the world’s oil supply has “peaked” or there is a terrorist attack on a Middle East oil field? When the public finds out that there is a low-cost alternative to gasoline, I believe that there will be a political “mandate” to correct the problem as soon as possible. Moreover, if the public discovers that converting to hydrogen fuel could also help save the Social Security program—as I will describe in this book—I believe that they could become outraged at the lack of action by our government.

Chapter 1

The Oil Problem

I am constantly amazed by comments made by politicians and the media with regard to how we have hundreds of years of fossil fuels to keep our current lifestyles going. If by some miracle we do continue to find enough to last hundreds of years—all well and good, but it doesn’t make much sense to base our energy policies upon miracles.

Barring a miracle, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, and we need to prepare for this ominous eventuality. If the world continues on its current 2 percent annual energy consumption increase path, my estimate is that we could run out of all currently known fossil fuels by the year 2073. If additional undiscovered technically recoverable fossil fuels do become a reality, it won’t save us, and here’s why.

If you are not convinced that a 2 percent annual fossil fuel consumption rate is a serious problem, I invite you to do your own arithmetic. Using an Excel spreadsheet, begin with today’s world oil consumption rate of 33 billion barrels per year and multiply this number by 1.02 to represent a 2 percent increase for the next year. Now keep doing this for a total of sixty years. When you add the column of numbers, you will get 3.76 trillion barrels of oil consumed over the sixty-year time frame. The next thing you will notice is that the number of barrels of oil being consumed in the sixtieth year is 106 billion. To understand what these numbers mean, the total known worldwide crude oil reserves is less than 1.0 trillion barrels.

To further explain what I mean, there are almost 7 billion people on planet earth today and projections are that there will be 9.2 billion people by the year 2050. If all the people in the year 2050 consumed oil at the rate currently used by the United States, oil usage alone would increase from today’s 33 billion barrels per year to about 1,875 billion barrels per year. This is enough to deplete the amount of oil contained in Saudi’s supergiant oil reservoir in about 1.7 months. Fortunately, if the 2 percent growth rate holds, the world will consume only about 70 billion barrels per year by 2050.

If you are still not convinced about what I am saying, consider this quote from the United States Energy Information istration (EIA): “at the current rate of growth, world oil consumption will rise 50 percent in the next twenty years.”

If you’re thinking that the above analysis applies only to the rest of the world, and not to the United States, it would be irrational to assume that the United States will fuel itself, while the rest of the world runs out. If it does, the rest of the world will have switched to using hydrogen as the only alternative, and the United States will be behind the learning curve!

In my opinion, the rate at which we are depleting the world’s known crude oil reserves is a clear and present danger to the United States and the world. Although the United States can claim to have lots of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and that fuel can be made or extracted from our vast deposits of coal and shale, keep in mind that the world will consume about 3.76 trillion barrels over the next sixty years. How about having the United States begin a forty-year phase in of hydrogen right now and saving the world from some potentially dire consequences!

Currently, the world consumes about 91 million barrels of oil each day, of which 21 million barrels are consumed by the United States. Of the 21 million barrels consumed by the United States, about 5.25 million barrels per day come from the Middle East. At more than $100 per barrel (up from about $42 per barrel at the beginning of 2005), this amounts to about $192 billion per year. (Note: The price of oil might now be higher or lower than $100 per barrel, but for simplicity, I will assume $100 per barrel.) If nothing is done about this ominous situation, the Middle East portion of our oil purchases could grow from its present 25 percent to more than 30 percent by the year 2025. Couple this with the concern that many in the United States believe that a terrorist attack on a large Saudi oil field could cut world production by 10 percent and quickly send oil prices soaring.

Most importantly, worldwide consumption of oil has been increasing very rapidly. From 1999 to 2003, the world oil consumption increased 5 percent. From 2003 through 2005, it increased 6 percent. This exponential increase was, and is, due primarily to a fast-growing middle class in China, India, and other developing nations. To further exacerbate the situation, we are currently finding only one barrel of oil for every four barrels of oil being consumed, and existing oil wells are starting to “dry up.” For instance, the Alaska pipeline production— traditionally at 1 million barrels of oil per day—is now declining because the oil reservoir in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay has peaked . What this means is that we are approaching a point in time where world oil production will “peak.” In other words, the world’s oil reservoirs will reach a point where their total rate of production cannot increase. It also means that the production rate will decrease with time. However, it does not mean that the oil wells have run dry; instead, they just cannot produce oil at a faster rate.

It is a well-established fact that output of individual oil reservoirs (wells) rises after discovery, reach a peak, and decline thereafter. Oil reservoirs have lifetimes typically measured in decades, and peak production occurs roughly about a decade or so after discovery. “Peaking,” for an individual reservoir, is its maximum oil production rate, and typically occurs after roughly half of the recoverable oil in the reservoir has been produced. The lower forty-eight states were one of the richest, most geologically varied and most oil productive areas in the world up until 1970. When oil prices tripled in 1973 to 1974, and by another factor of two in 1979 to 1980, oil exploration was increased on a large scale. This exploration included three-dimensional seismic analysis, economic horizontal drilling, and dramatically improved geological understanding. Nevertheless, oil production trended downward. In light of this experience, there is good reason to believe that an analogous situation will exist worldwide, after oil production peaks.

Oil reserves have been in a decline relative to consumption since 1985. This is coupled with the fact that new “supergiant” oil reservoirs, mainly in the Middle East, that are the easiest to find, the most economical to develop, and the longest

lived have not been found since 1967 and 1968. Since then, smaller reservoirs of varying sizes have been discovered in what are called “oil prone” locations. What this indicates is that the world peak oil production rate is probably not too far into the future. Listed in the outdated table below were projections from credible analysts on the subject of “peaking” of world oil production:

From this table, it appears that most of the experts have been wrong so far, but it doesn’t mean that peak oil is not going to happen, and happen soon.

The extensive exploration and drilling for oil and gas has provided a massive worldwide database, and current geological knowledge is much more extensive than in past years. In addition, various seismic and other exploration technologies have advanced dramatically in recent years.

The fact is nobody knows how much oil supply we have left. But what we do know is that when an oil well runs dry, it happens very rapidly. And, if a “supergiant” oil well runs dry, the short-term consequences could be devastating to gasoline prices.

The table below shows how much known oil reserves exist in the world, who has it, and who uses it:

Oil reserves (millions of barrels as of January 1, 2002): Top 20 countries

Saudi arabia 261,750

United states: 22,045

Iraq: 112,500

Qatar: 15,207

United Arib Emirates: 97,800

Honvay: 9,947

Kuwait: 96,500

Algeria: 9,200

Iran: 89,700

Brazil: 8,465

Venezuela: 77,685

Oman: 5,506

Russia: 48,573

Kazakhstan: 5,417

Libia: 29,500

Angola: 5,412

Mexico: 26,941

Indonesia: 5,000

Nigeria: 24,000 China: 24,000 Note: First 20 countries: 975,148—rest of world: 56,983.

Oil consumption (thousands of barrels per day): Top 20 countries

United States: 19,993

Mexico: 1,932

Japan: 5,423

Italy: 1,881

China: 4,854

United Kingdom: 1,699

Russia: 2,531

Spain: 1,465

South Korea: 2,126

Saudi Arabia: 1,415

Brazil: 2,123

Iran: 1,109

Canada: 2,048

Indonesia: 1,063

: 2,040

Netherlands: 881

India: 2,011

Australia: 879 Taiwan: 846

Note: First 20 countries: 59,134—rest of world: 16,854.

Oil production (thousands of barrels per day): Top 20 countries

Saudi arabia: 8,528

United kingdom: 2,540

United States: 8,091

Iraq: 2,377

Russia: 7,014

Nigeria: 2,223

Iran: 3,775

Kuwait: 1,838

Mexico: 3,560

Brazil: 1,589

Norway: 3,408

Algeria: 1,486

China: 3,297

Libia: 1,427

Venezuela: 3,137

Indonesia: 1,384

Canada: 2,749

Oman: 964

United Arab Emirates: 2,550

Argentina: 825

Note: First 20 countries; 62,762—rest of world: 12,464.

Re: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/oil reserve

Although the above numbers are old, the known world reserves have been depleted by usage over this time period. If we assume that the numbers are correct for the year 2001, the world oil reserves were 1,032,132 million barrels, and the world consumption rate was 76 million barrels per day but increasing at a rate of 2 percent per year. If that rate were to continue, we will run out of known oil reserves by the year 2037.

Some readers might be saying the year 2037 is a long time from now and I’m not going to worry about it. Besides, didn’t the Energy Information istration (EIA) recently state that the United States has about 163 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil? Yes—but as stated in the introduction of this book undiscovered and actually known are quite different. It’s not like finding a supergiant oil reservoir. However, even if the 163 billion barrels of oil comes to fruition in a timely and cost-effective manner, it will only constitute an increase of about 16 percent in the global oil supply. And since the world will be consuming about 53 billion barrels of oil per year by the year 2037—it won’t last very long. One could argue that this oil will only be used by the United States, and the rest of the world can try something else. What if they try hydrogen?

To mitigate the ominous oil crisis, the United States and other countries around the world are increasingly turning to conservation, energy efficiency, ethanol, oil sands, and synthetic fuel from coal, natural gas, and oil shale. As you will see, these mitigating methods do not solve the problem.

Conservation and Energy Efficiency

Conservation and energy efficiency—like motherhood and apple pie—can certainly help stave off the ominous fuel shortage threat, but the world population is rapidly increasing and becoming more industrialized. In my opinion, this mitigating method will only help to keep the global exponential rate of transportation fuel increase at only 2 percent and only delays the inevitable.

Ethanol

The subject of ethanol, or biofuel, is very complex and is generally misunderstood because the processes used in its formation vary significantly. Probably, the best and most promising method for producing ethanol is shown below:

The main reason why switch grass may be the best method is that it is a deeprooted perennial prairie grass that can have multiple crops during a year and can be grown on marginal land with relatively small amounts of water and fertilizer.

With regard to switch grass and other fast-growing plants, researchers are currently trying to find better, more efficient ways of breaking down the cellulosic material into sugars that can be fermented. The sugar extraction is accomplished by loosening the bond between the cellulose or hemicellulose and lignin. One possibility is to produce genetically modified microbes and enzymes —from the guts of termites—nature’s own cellulosic energy factories. At present, an input to output energy ratio of four is feasible but expensive.

The current—most widely used—method of producing ethanol is to convert food crops, like corn, sugar beets, soy beans, and sugar cane since these crops do not require exotic methods to extract their sugar content. From an energy balance standpoint, corn is the worst at about 1 unit of energy input to about 1.3 units of energy output. Sugarcane, on the other hand, can have an output to input ratio of about eight to one.

Because sugarcane is such an effective ethanol producer, Brazil, with its warm and moist climate, is producing an ever increasing amount of sugarcane ethanol. In fact, it plans to double its cane acreage over the next decade. Thus, contributing to deforestation and displacing existing agricultural areas. As a result, cattlemen are being driven deeper into frontier territory like the Amazon and biologically diverse savannas known as the “cerrado.”

In the United States, corn is the leading ingredient for producing ethanol. While at first, this may not seem to make sense, keep in mind that we are trying to free ourselves from our dependence on imported oil. As such we are laying the ground work for an ethanol infrastructure that should become more reasonable

as the cellulosic methods are being developed. In fact, if the corn stocks could be converted into ethanol, it would increase corn’s energy ratio from 1.3 to 1 to more than 2 to 1.

Although ethanol has problems that must be accommodated, such as 39 percent lower-energy content per gallon than gasoline, a potential engine corrosion problem, if exposed to water, and the potential for using hydrocarbons in its distilling process, it does help to provide a short-term solution to the fuel crisis problem.

When ethanol is used as a long-term solution, even as an energy mix with gasoline, it cannot be sustained. Why, because the world’s population will increase to almost 9.2 billion by the year 2050, and the world will have a foodshortage problem. In fact, currently almost twenty-five thousand people die of hunger every day—most under the age of five.

Oil Sands

The process for making crude oil from oil sand is illustrated below:

Oil sand is a thick, sticky form of crude oil and must be extracted from a complex mix of sand, water, and clay. The heavy syrup is either drawn out with heat, or mined with machinery, and then heated to transform it into useable oil. About a barrel of water is used for every barrel of oil produced, and the process takes large volumes of natural gas to heat and separate the oil from the sand.

The total world’s oil sand deposits equal about 485 billion barrels of recoverable oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oil_sands), with 75 percent being located in Canada and Venezuela. Canada—primarily in northern Alberta—has one of the richest oil−sand deposits in the world, with recoverable oil equal to 178 billion barrels.

Recovery of oil from oil sands is the least expensive method of producing an alternative source of oil. And, at the present time, Canada’s oil production from oil sands is 2.5 million barrels per day and is expected to double over the next four years.

Synthetic Fuel from Coal

The process for making synthetic fuel from coal is illustrated below:

The method used for making synthetic fuels from coal is called the FisherTropsch (FT) process and is described by the chemical equation:

CH4 + 1/2O2 2H2 + CO

(2n + 1)H2 + nCO CnH2n + nH2O

The mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) is called synthesis gas or syngas. The resulting hydrocarbon products are refined to produce the desired synthetic fuel.

This process was invented in petroleum-poor but coal-rich in the 1920s to produce liquid fuels. It was used by and Japan during WWII to produce alternative fuels, and ’s synthetic fuel production reached more than 124,000 barrels per day from twenty-five plants.

After the war, captured German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip continued to work on synthetic fuels for the United States Bureau of Mines program initiated by the Synthetic Liquid Fuel Act.

Currently, two companies have commercialized their FT technology, Shell in Bintulu, Malaysia, and Sasol in South Africa. A small US company, Rentech, is also producing liquid hydrocarbons as a by-product of producing fertilizer.

The FT process is an established technology and is already being applied on a

large scale. However, its initial popularity was hampered by high capital costs, high operating costs, and high operation and maintenance costs when the price of crude oil was relatively low. At $100 + per barrel of oil, this is currently not the case.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that there are 2,000 trillion pounds of recoverable coal in the world, and that the United States, with 28 percent, has the largest share. If half of the world’s coal were available for conversion to synthetic fuel, it would be the equivalent of about 2,000 billion barrels of crude oil being available for transportation fuels (most of today’s coal is being used to generate electricity).

Oil Shale

The process for making liquid fuel from oil shale is illustrated below:

The United States has, by far, the largest oil shale deposit located in a 16,000 square mile area of the Green River region of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. A substance called kerogen which needs to be heated and distilled can yield a liquid fuel.

The World Energy Council (WEC) estimates that recoverable world oil shale reserves contain about 620 billion barrels of equivalent oil, with 94 percent located in North America. Other department of energy estimates are as high as 1.38 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable equivalent oil (I assume that they mean—kerogen—oil).

Oil shale is buried beneath about 5,280 feet of earth and can be 10,560 feet thick. Rather than dig the largest open pit mine in the world, Shell Oil’s proposed method of extraction involves plunging electric heaters into the ground and bring the rock to a very high temperature and leave it in this condition for three to four years. During this time, the perimeter would be frozen to seal off water and contain the kerogen. To accomplish this task, about 1,200 megawatts of electricity (about the size of one nuclear power plant) would be required to produce 100,000 barrels of kerogen per day. As one writer put it “it would take about one barrel of oil to produce about one barrel of oil.”

Natural Gas and Methane Hydrates

Finally, with regard to carbon based fuels, natural gas and methane can be pressurized or liquefied and used as a portable fuel to power vehicles.

The United States currently consumes about 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

per year (three percent being imported), and that is expected to grow to 32 trillion cubic feet per year by the year 2020. The United States Energy Information istration (EIA) estimates that the United States has about 310 trillion cubic feet of known recoverable natural gas reserves but that number is increasing rapidly. The best guess today is that undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas could be as much as 2,100 trillion cubic feet.

Since the 1970s, methane (methane is essentially natural gas) has been discovered in ice that is lying on, or a few hundred feet below, the deep ocean floor off many coastlines around the world. At first, most experts agreed that the total carbon in methane hydrates was twice that in all the world’s known coal, oil, and natural gas combined. However, recent estimates are that the total carbon is one half to one tenth of all the world’s known coal, oil, and natural gas. This is still a significant amount that would equal two to ten times that of the world’s estimated natural gas reserves. One significant problem with its extraction is destabilizing the ocean floor that s drilling platforms.

In Summary

Using the previous information, let’s do some simple arithmetic using known reserves of fossil fuels and a 2 percent annual increase in world consumption as follows:

• If we assume a current amount of 1,000 billion known barrels of oil, at the 2 percent annual rate of consumption increase, the world will be out of oil by the year 2037.

• The second easiest to recover oil is found in oil sands located mostly in Canada and Venezuela. The world’s known oil sands reserves are estimated to contain about 485 billion barrels of oil. At a continuing 2 percent annual rate of

consumption increase, the world would run out of oil−sand oil by the year 2046.

• If we assume 2,000 billion equivalent barrels of oil being derived from the world’s known coal reserves, we would be out of coal by the year 2071.

• If we assume 1,000 billion equivalent barrels of oil being derived from the world’s known shale reserves, we would be out of shale oil by the year 2080.

• Now assume that conservation, energy efficiency, and ethanol or bio-fuels (which will probably reach a balance between world food and fuel requirements) will maintain the exponential rate of global transportation fuel usage at 2 percent rather than go to 3 percent or more.

• Since the use of natural gas is also increasing at a 2 percent annual rate for electric power generation, industrial usage, heating, and possibly providing the heat necessary for processing the oil sands, oil shale, and ethanol, it will be depleted in a similar time frame. However, because of the uncertainty of how much methane hydrates will become available, its run out date is, at best, uncertain.

As you can see, based upon currently known reserves and the current 2 percent per year exponential rate of world consumption (controlled at 2 percent by using ethanol, conservation, and energy efficiency) oil and equivalent oil would be depleted by the year 2080. And this estimate does not take into the feasibility of economically producing this amount of fuel at the required rates, or the reduced production rates resulting from “peak” oil. It also doesn’t for the amount of air pollution that will come from fuels derived from coal or the energy input needed to derive kerogen from shale. While I have no doubt that more oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels will be added to the known reserves in future years, keep in mind how much consumption will be taking place in the

year 2080—about 122 billion barrels per year.

While you may not be concerned about what may happen sixty or seventy years from now, it would be irresponsible to our children and grandchildren to leave them in a potentially unstable and polluted world; a world that also had a regressive economy, because of our ineptitude, lack of vision, short sightedness, and greed. Even more importantly, we could leave them a world ravaged by oilrelated wars. For this generation to ignore using clean burning hydrogen fuel now, especially if its supply is almost inexhaustible and probably the least expensive way to provide transportation fuel may, at that time, be considered the greatest tragedy in recorded history.

Chapter 2

Wrestling for Deck chairs

I believe that all politicians need to a test in logic before they can take office. At least then I would know whether their illogical actions are deliberate or not. As an engineer, I am often mystified by the apparent lack of logic and simple arithmetic behind the laws that they make. I do understand how some corrupt politicians will do whatever is necessary to get reelected, but do they really understand what they are doing?

I can think of many examples of illogical laws that have been ed and regulations that have been imposed, but one instance sticks out in my mind. I don’t the exact year, but in an attempt to raise tax revenue, our congress ed a law to increase the sales tax on very expensive yachts. As a result, the people that would normally buy a yacht in the United States bought them from other countries that were less penalizing. The unintended consequence was that some yacht builders in the United States went out of business and workers lost their jobs. Obviously, tax revenue declined. My question is this. Did any politician that voted to this law ever ask themselves what are the possible consequences if this law were to be enacted? Some people might say it’s easy for you to criticize in hindsight, but as an engineer, I would have looked at many possible outcomes before I cast my vote, and this outcome was blatantly obvious. I cannot even think of a political reason for this law to have been ed. Was it to get the politicians reelected? Was it a case of doing an illogical thing now to achieve a greater good? I think I know the real reason, but I’ll let you guess for yourself.

I began this chapter with the above preamble to point out something our government currently appears to be doing that I consider quite illogical. It is illogical because simple arithmetic would show that it is illogical. Although almost everything that our government appears to be doing about energy doesn’t make much sense to me, I am particularly disturbed about the all electric batterypowered car and a lack of insight and understanding regarding hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Are we betting our future on a miracle battery that weighs and costs almost nothing, is capable of a two-minute recharge, lasts the life of the car without losing charge capacity, and can propel a car 500 miles between charges?

What is our government thinking? If this weren’t bad enough, our government has been defunding research on hydrogen. This ineptitude along with subsidies to current versions of wind and solar energy is like “wrestling for deck chairs on board the Titanic.” If we continue along these paths, we will eventually hit an energy iceberg! Fortunately, some automotive manufacturers see the promise that hydrogen-powered vehicles hold for our future. One such manufacturer is Honda.

If you think that all electric battery-powered cars are the wave of the future, or that hydrogen-fueled cars are decades away—think again! Here is how the commercially available hydrogen fuel cell-powered 2012 Honda FCX Clarity compares with the battery-powered Nissan Leaf—assuming a 200-thousand-mile ownership:

2012 Honda FCX Clarity

2012 Honda FCX Clarity (hydrogen fuel cell powered)

• 3.92 kg’s hydrogen at 5,000 psi • 60 miles per gallon 240 miles range (EPA rated) • 240 miles range (EPA rated) • 134 horsepower electric motor • 3,582 pounds curb weight • Seating for 4 • 13.1 cubic foot cargo space • 99 miles per hour top speed (estimated) • 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds • 288 volt lithium ion battery • Average price — $40,000 (estimated based upon $21,600 3 year lease price) • 2 minute refueling time • Total cost per mile at $4.00/eq. gal = $0.27 per mile • Total cost per mile at $5.00/eq. gal = $0.28 per mile • Total cost per mile at $4.00/eq. gal with expected cost reductions = $0.19 • Total cost per mile at $5.00/eq. gal with expected cost reductions = $0.21

2012 Nissan Leaf

2012 Nissan Leaf (all electric lithium-ion battery-powered)

• No fuel tank • 99 miles per equivalent gallon • 70 miles range at 55 mph • No engine • 3,370 pounds curb weight • Seating for 5 • 10.6 cubic foot cargo space (estimated) • 93 miles per hour top speed • 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds • $15,000 lithium-ion battery/100,000 mile estimated life • Average selling price $33,750 w/o taxes or fees plus a $2,500 home charging unit • 7 hour battery charge time at home/2-3 hours over the road fast charge • Total cost per mile at $0.10 * per kw-hr = $0.29** • Total cost per mile at $0.10 * per kw-hr with expected cost reductions = $0.21** • Total cost per mile at $0.20 * per kw-hr with expected cost reductions = $0.24**

* 2012 average price of electricity in the United States was $0.1153 per kilowatt hour

** Includes a 100,000 mile battery replacement cost (home charging unit not included)

If you want to do your own arithmetic use the following formulas:

For the Honda FCX

• $ per equivalent gallon of gasoline / average miles per gallon + $ selling price/200,000 miles

For the Nissan Leaf:

• (kilowatt-hours charged x $ per kilowatt-hour) / average miles per charge + ($ selling price + 100,000 mile battery replacement cost) /200,000 miles

To me, it is obvious that the Honda FCX is the preferred car, even at its current higher price. Why? Because of its much longer range between fill-ups, significantly less fuel fill-up time, more than double the power source life (fuel cell versus battery), and significant end of life salvage value (because of about $1,200 worth of platinum that can be recovered from the fuel cell’s electrode coating). Because the Leaf’s lithium-ion battery loses some of its charge capacity during its approximate 100,000-mile lifetime and requires a significant replacement cost, the resale and end of life salvage value is much less.

By the way, if Honda were to use a currently available 10,000 psi fuel tank, the mileage range could almost double to 480 miles and the cost per fill-up at $4 per equivalent gallon of hydrogen fuel would be $32. When compared to an equivalent thirty miles per gallon gasoline-powered car, the fuel cost to go 480 miles would be $64 at $4 per gallon. Over a ten-year time frame and an average of fifteen thousand miles being driven each year, this fuel savings equates to about $10 thousand.

But you say, there are no hydrogen fueling stations in my neighborhood. Well, hold on. Honda says it has a solution. They have developed a natural gas to hydrogen home refueling unit, which according to Honda can save 30 percent or more in combined home energy costs and automobile operation, assuming that the family car is currently fueled with gasoline.

Honda’s Natural Gas to Hydrogen Home Refueling Unit

Here is how it works:

Natural gas Home Refueling Unit Process

Notice how low-cost natural gas is first converted to hydrogen in a reformer. To supply electricity to the home, some of the hydrogen gas is diverted to a fuel cell and inverter to provide electricity and hot water heat at a lower price than is provided by an electric power plant. As shown, the remaining supply of hydrogen fuels the hydrogen fuel cell car while it is parked overnight. At a 2012 price for natural gas, we can generate pressurized hydrogen gas at the equivalent gasoline gallon price of about one dollar. At this price, the Honda FCX will save $17,500 in fuel savings over a ten-year time frame when compared to the above mentioned gasoline-powered car.

Perhaps at this point, you are asking if I can make hydrogen gas for one dollar per equivalent gasoline gallon, why not use natural gas at half that price and save even more money? Good question and the answer may surprise you. To answer this question, let’s look at what is currently available from Honda—the Honda GX. Here are the facts :

Honda GX (natural gas fuel)

• 7.8 equivalent natural gas gallons of gasoline fuel tank (3,600 psi) • 28 miles per gallon • 220 miles range (EPA rated) • 113 horsepower natural gas engine • 2910 pounds curb weight • Seating for 5 • 6 cubic foot cargo space

• 100 miles per hour top speed (estimated) • 0 to 60 mph in 12.6 seconds • Standard 12 volt battery • Average selling price $25,000 • 8 hour natural gas home refueling ($4,000 unit) • Total cost per mile at $0.50* per equivalent gallon = $0.14

*Based upon using a home refueling unit and $2.5 per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas

The first thing to notice is that the total cost per mile is less than the above mentioned cost reduced FCX model—$0.143 per mile for the GX versus $0.19 cost reduced FCX. The problem here is that we are comparing apples to oranges. If the Honda Home refueling unit receives natural gas at $5 per 1,000 cubic feet, the net price per equivalent gallon of compressed hydrogen is about $1 rather than the $4 stated in the FCX description. If $1 per equivalent gallon were used in the analysis, the resulting total cost per mile would be slightly less than $0.143 for the mass produced and cost reduced sixty miles per gallon FCX. However, since the natural gas home refueling unit costs about half as much as Honda’s home refueling unit, the cost analysis favors the natural gas car. But, wait a minute. I haven’t included the home electricity and hot water savings that is provided by Honda’ unit. Over a ten-year period, these home energy savings could be more than $5,000.

In case you are thinking that the $0.50 per equivalent gasoline gallon of natural gas makes the natural gas vehicle more cost-effective when compared to $4 per equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen, this is also not a correct assumption. It is not correct because if pressurized natural gas were purchased at a service station, it would be priced much higher—my investigation shows it to be about $2.50 per

equivalent gasoline gallon.

As you examine these facts, it becomes obvious that the natural gas car is a better choice in of range per fill-up and cost per driven mile than the all electric battery-powered car—even when the electric car is eventually reduced in price. In fact, the real competitor for the hydrogen fuel cell car appears to be the natural gas car and not the all electric battery-powered car. The natural gas car is available now whereas the cost-reduced FCX is dependent upon increased sales volume. This then begs the question—why aren’t people buying natural gasfueled cars rather than gasoline-fueled cars, and why not use natural gas rather than deal with hydrogen? There are many reasons why people are not buying natural gas cars, not the least of which is the higher purchase price, over the road availability of pressurized natural gas—a limited range between fill-ups, a sluggish performance (due to the lower energy content of natural gas versus gasoline), and a lack of trunk space. But to me, these points are not the real issue. The real issue is the amount of natural gas that would be consumed if all vehicles in the United States were to use it for fuel. Regardless of what you might have been led to believe, the increased consumption of natural gas would place a tremendous burden on our domestic natural gas supply.

To prove my point, as mentioned earlier, the United States currently consumes about 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year (three percent being imported), and that is expected to grow to 32 trillion cubic feet per year by the year 2020. The United States Energy Information istration (EIA) recently estimated that the United States had about 310 trillion cubic feet of known recoverable natural gas reserves. Using 26 trillion cubic feet as the mean consumption value, we would have about twelve years before we ran out. However, the EIA estimate is changing very rapidly.

You have probably heard by now that a new drilling process called “fracking” is substantially increasing natural gas reserves, thus the reason for the recent decline in natural gas pricing. The “fracking” process injects millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals to as much as 10 thousand feet below ground to

hydraulically fracture shale and release natural gas. Although environmentalists are claiming that the chemicals and natural gas may eventually get into the ground water supply, their claims have yet to be proven. If these claims prove to be unfounded, the potential for increasing the natural gas supply could be substantial. In fact, one assessment shows that the United States natural gas reserves could increase from the above mentioned known amount of about 310 trillion cubic feet to over 2,100 trillion cubic feet.

Since the United States currently consumes about 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, this amount contributes about 20 percent of its energy consumption. So let’s do some simple arithmetic. If 100 percent of our United States energy consumption came from natural gas, it would take about three years to deplete our known reserves and about twenty years to deplete the estimated unknown reserves—and that doesn’t include increased consumption due to population growth.

So if we retrofit our coal-fired power plants with natural gas, convert all transportation vehicles to use natural gas, and shut down nuclear power (as some have advocated), the best that we can do is about twenty years. For those who would advocate converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas and that automobiles be powered by electricity or natural gas, the number of additional power plants, natural gas pipelines, and gas station conversions would need to increase substantially. If the unknown reserves do not materialize as envisioned, the result will be a substantial increase in imported natural gas and our dependence on other countries will begin again. Since Russia and the Middle East currently own 73 percent of the known reserves of natural gas, my opinion is that in time we would again become dependent on imported transportation fuel —in this case, imported high cost liquefied natural gas.

As you will see in my proposed hydrogen plan, a maximum of only 20 to 25 percent of the hydrogen produced for transportation vehicles will be derived from natural gas with the remainder being derived from water. So rather than divert our attention by switching to natural gas, why not leapfrog to using

hydrogen? If our short-term objective is to wean the United States off imported oil, we can begin by making hydrogen from natural gas. This would then serve as a “bridge” to provide an infrastructure that would be ready for hydrogen made entirely from water.

I hope that the above rational settles the natural gas-fueled vehicle question, but let’s continue our discussion about the various car choices by considering the environment as it pertains to the above mentioned vehicles. Since about half of electric power generation in the United States is derived from coal, the all electric battery-powered car will pollute the atmosphere more than an equivalent gasoline-powered car if coal is used to provide electricity. Natural gas cars would seem to be the least polluting since they would not require additional energy for the conversion to hydrogen. However, since hydrogen is used much more efficiently to propel a fuel cell vehicle, the net effect favors hydrogen. In other words, getting twenty-eight miles per equivalent gasoline gallon of natural gas is slightly more polluting than getting sixty miles per equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen.

With regard to weaning the United States off imported oil, the battery, natural gas, and hydrogen vehicles can aid in fulfilling that goal. As stated above the problem is that natural gas will not last forever. Therefore, we will eventually need to find ways to economically produce hydrogen from water, and, that is what I will attempt to do in this book.

So what is the point that I am making? The point I am making is that the all electric battery-powered car is obviously not the wave of the future—as some people have come to believe. While this brief discussion may not satisfy you with regard to whether or not what I am saying is true, I will elaborate in much more detail later in this book—especially with regard to projected vehicle cost estimates and the price of hydrogen at the service station pump. In contrast, hydrogen, in my opinion, is the wave of the future as it pertains to being a transportation fuel. It is the wave of the future because we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, and we need to extend our oil supply until we find substitutes

to replace its many non-fuel uses.

With regard to what you may have been told about the safety aspects of using hydrogen as a transportation fuel, I will set the record straight. Hydrogen, as I will show in this book, is safer to use than gasoline.

Chapter 3

A Money-Making Machine

For most of my life I’ve wanted to find ways to become rich, but my reasons have changed over the years. By growing up in a poor family, in a poor neighborhood just outside of Boston, I occasionally saw the things that rich people were able to do with their money, and I wanted to do the same. When I was in middle school, one of my classmates, named Wayne Libby, told me that he was going to go to college and become an engineer. My first response was what is an engineer? After he told me what an engineer was I asked why he wanted to become one. His response was to make lots of money and become rich. At this point, he got my attention. It had nothing to do with his interest in technology and science. On the other hand, I had always been interested in technology and science and the idea that I could work doing things that I liked and make lots of money at the same time was very appealing.

That evening, I told my mother and father that I wanted to go to college and become an engineer. My elder brother—ten years older than me—was becoming a photo engraver, and it was going to take five years of apprenticeship to learn the trade. I think that my family was disappointed that I wouldn’t pursue a trade like my brother was doing at that time. After all, the only person in my family that had gone to college was my rich uncle Norman, and besides where was I going to get the money to go to college since my family certainly didn’t have it? It was just expected in my neighborhood that my friends and I would finish high school and get a job doing something. Well, my uncle Norman owned his own business and appeared to be doing quite well. Based upon this observation, it didn’t take a lot of insight for me to realize that my family, and my friends’ families, all worked in various jobs and lived in a poor neighborhood, while my uncle Norman lived in a rich neighborhood. Putting two and two together, I came up with four. But the question remained how could I go to college if my family couldn’t afford to pay my tuition?

Being optimistic and undeterred, I chose to go to Boston Technical High School where I could learn technology and science and get ready for pursuing an engineering degree. In my senior year, I was accepted at Northeastern University which had the largest cooperative education program in the country. It was a

five-year bachelor degree program that was set up to have students work ten weeks and go to school ten weeks. In this way, the student could make enough money to pay for their tuition. The problem was that the co-op program didn’t begin until the second year, which meant that I had to pay the first year’s tuition. When my uncle Norman heard about my financial problem, he came to the rescue and paid it for me. Thank God for my rich uncle Norman!

When I did graduate with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1964, I immediately entered the army as a second lieutenant. In my second year at Northeastern, I had ed the ROTC program and was obligated to two years of active duty. This didn’t help to make me rich, but while serving a tour of duty in Vietnam, I saved almost all of my pay. This enabled my wife and me to purchase a house after my army tour was over, and I had an engineering job with Westinghouse. While my work on advanced nuclear steam generators was very interesting, I didn’t make enough money to make me rich—as Wayne Libby once thought. On the other hand, I did see Westinghouse managers who seemed to be doing very well—thank you. The question then was how could I become a Westinghouse manager? To make long story short, I read a book called How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, and using his good advice, I did become an engineering manager. My salary was very good, but it still didn’t make me rich.

By the way, my idea of being rich was quite different at this point in my life. It wasn’t just having money so that I could indulge myself, but rather, it was how could having a lot of money help others? I had seen and lived with extreme poverty in Vietnam, and I had a strong desire to someday help people living in undeveloped countries. I don’t believe that you can help destitute people by giving them a hand out. It’s the old story of giving a person a fish and you feed them for a day, whereas if you give them a fishing rod, you feed them for a lifetime.

In this chapter, I will tell you about a “fishing rod idea,” but throughout the rest of the book, I will explain how the fallout from this “fishing rod” can ultimately

enhance the lives of people living in the villages and hamlets of Vietnam—and in other destitute places around the world. Here is that “fishing rod.”

You probably all know the paradox regarding the chicken and the egg—which came first? Well, that’s the current problem with hydrogen being used as a transportation fuel. How do we get started? Do we install thousands of hydrogen refueling stations around the country and wait for hydrogen-fueled cars to come into existence, or do we build hydrogen-fueled cars with home refueling stations and wait for hydrogen refueling stations to follow.

While in the last chapter, we discussed making hydrogen fuel with Honda’s home refueling unit we will eventually need to have over the road hydrogen fuel available if we want to travel more than a 100 miles from home. The cartoon at the beginning of this chapter is intended to illustrate how a service station can make lots of money by on-site reforming of natural gas to produce hydrogen fuel. The processing unit shown in the cartoon is 17 feet high, 17 feet wide, and 8 feet deep. A 16-foot-high centrally placed reforming unit is contained inside with a total of twenty-eight 12 inch diameter 7-foot-tall-vertical hydrogen gas cylinders located on each side of the reformer. Natural gas is reformed into hydrogen at the rate of 6.25 kilograms per hour. It is then pressurized and stored in the vertical cylinders. A dispensing unit is located in front of the processing unit and provides either 10,000 psi (pounds per square inch) or 5,000 psi hydrogen gas to fuel a vehicle.

If mass produced, the hydrogen production and dispensing apparatus can have an installed price of about $300 thousand. If natural gas is available at $5 per 1,000 cubic feet, rather than today’s price of $2.5 per 1,000 cubic feet, the dispensed hydrogen will cost about $1 per kilogram (the equivalent energy content of one gallon of gasoline). If sold for $4 per kilogram, the operator could make $3 net profit if federal and state taxes are waived during the initial start-up phase (assuming the intent of our government is to wean the United States off imported oil). If the owner sold 150 kilograms of hydrogen per day, his (or her) gross profit would be $160 thousand per year. However, the $300 thousand investment

would still need to be paid off. At 5 percent interest over a period of ten years, the yearly amortization cost for $300 thousand would be almost $40 thousand thus generating a net profit of $120 thousand per year if the unit is fully utilized. Since the equipment should last for at least twenty years, the second ten years could result in the full $160 thousand per year. Unfortunately, at that time, the government would probably want its tax revenue.

Since the average service station earns about $180 thousand per year from the sale of gasoline, almost all of it goes to pay rent, payroll, and credit card fees. If the hydrogen dispensing unit is added, the money produced from the sale of hydrogen is almost all profit that can go to the owner. What a deal! Of course in order for the owner to make this profit, he (or she) needs to service about 50 vehicles per day, which equates to about 350 hydrogen-fueled vehicles refueling about once per week. So where are these vehicles? Since there “ain’t none now,” the service station owner will be paying $40 thousand per year for the reforming or dispensing unit as it sits idle. Therefore as lucrative as this money-making machine might seem, there is no incentive to invest $300 thousand in something that has no customers.

So how do we get more hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road so that the reformer or dispenser unit makes economic sense? Because it’s a chicken and egg problem, let’s fix both problems at the same time. How about having a Social Security investor consortium—comprised of 50 million twenty-five to fifty-year-old investors—pay for about 100 thousand small-scale reformer or dispenser units over a period of ten years and split the $3 per kilogram profit. At the sametime, the consortium provides incentives to individuals and automotive manufacturers.

How about a $4,000 incentive to retrofit a standard gasoline-fueled vehicle with a Honda-style 5,000 psi hydrogen fuel tank? The vehicle would run on either hydrogen or gasoline at the flip of a switch, or better yet an electronic transfer device that senses the remaining amount of hydrogen fuel. Let’s provide even more incentive by giving each participant a Honda-style home refueling unit

where hydrogen can be made from natural gas for less than $1 per equivalent gasoline gallon. But let’s not stop there. Let’s incentivize automotive manufacturers to produce hydrogen-fueled vehicles. In this case, we could provide the automotive manufacturer with $15,000 per fuel cell vehicle—like the Honda FCX—if they would agree to sell it for an agreed to competitive price of, say $25 thousand. For efficient hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine vehicles that get up to 40 percent more miles per equivalent gasoline gallon, a similar deal could be made. For instance, $5,000 per vehicle based upon a predetermined selling price. To assure the availability of hydrogen fuel, let’s also give these new owners a home refueling unit.

The above non-government sponsored incentives could be put into effect for a period of ten years or a maximum of 30 million vehicles—whichever comes first. For the dual fuel tank participants, I would limit the number of Honda-style home refueling units to 3 million. This offer would “kick-start” the program while 100 thousand service stations are being retrofitted with small-scale hydrogen dispensing pumps. After giving the 3 million home refueling units away, I would revise the offer to a three-year 25 percent discount on hydrogen fuel that will then be available at over the road service stations. For the automotive manufacturers, an increased sales volume will allow them to substantially reduce their costs though mass production. Therefore the subsidies should be phased out with time. For instance, the fuel cell vehicle subsidy could begin with $15,000 and be reduced each year for 10 years. Here again, I would limit the home refueling give away to 3 million but no fuel subsidy after that. In this case, a fuel subsidy would not be necessary because of the increased gas mileage provided by the new vehicles.

In case you are asking how I know that the small-scale reformers and dispensing units can be installed at a service station for only $300 thousand, well, here is my reasoning. A company named Praxair was commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2004 to build a small-scale hydrogen reforming unit that could be installed on skids within the confines of a single car parking space. Here is a photo of what Praxair built in their laboratory (Re: www.hydrogen.energy.gov-pdfs-progress06-11_a_aaron.pdf):

Praxair’s—4.8 Kilogram per Hour Natural Gas to Hydrogen Reformer

The unit was capable of operation in all United States climate conditions and last for about twenty years. The illustration below shows a flow diagram for the system:

Praxair—Low-Cost Hydrogen Production Platform Flow Diagram

This diagram doesn’t include a compressor, high-pressure holding tanks, or dispensing equipment. If you are concerned about the compressor, here is a commercially available hydrogen compressor from Hydro—pac Inc.

Hydro—pac’s—7 kilograms per Hour to 15,000 psi Hydrogen Compressor

As far as the 12-inch diameter high-pressure tanks are concerned, weight and size are not significant issues as it is with automotive fuel tanks. Therefore less expensive thick-walled alloy steel tanks with epoxy liners and low-cost external binding—if necessary—should meet our needs.

Now with regard to cost, here is Praxair’s estimate of reformed hydrogen cost versus quantity of processing units:

For clarity, the acronym LCHPP means low-cost hydrogen production platform. As you can see with quantities above 500 units per year, the cost to generate hydrogen is $2.50 per kilogram. But this includes combined capital and energy costs. It’s based upon $0.08 per kilowatt-hour for electricity and $5 per 1,000 cubic feet for natural gas ( as previously mentioned the 2012 price of natural gas was less about $2.50 per 1,000 cubic feet), a twenty-year life expectancy, a 75 percent utilization factor, a 10 percent rate of return after taxes, and a 1.9 percent inflation rate.

In my analysis, I have assumed $300 thousand for the completed and installed system, including the compressor, holding tanks, and dispensing equipment. It is also based upon 10 thousand units per year for ten years (or more). At 10 thousand units per year—rather than 500—I can state from my own working experience that the $300 thousand price tag is way overstated. In fact, it should probably be $150 thousand or even less. Just think of what you get when you buy an automobile where vertical integration, standardization, tooling, fixturing, die forming, just in time manufacturing, moving assembly lines, statistical process control, and robotics are maximized to the extent possible. I don’t want to insult your intelligence by explaining the obvious, but bear with me for a moment, because I can assure you that for some reason there are people who just don’t get it. When quantities are high enough, the money spent on the above mentioned list of cost-reducing items becomes a minor fraction of the cost of the item itself. In the case of making 10 thousand items per year, the money spent on cost-reducing items is spread out to one ten thousandth. In other words, if the cost-reducing items were to cost $100 million in yearly amortized dollars, the added cost per manufactured item would be $1,000. Since we are talking about an item that could cost $300 thousand, it’s not difficult to see how the costreducing items add only a small fraction to this amount but can have dramatic effect on reducing the cost of a single handmade item. In fact, quantities of this magnitude would allow ten or more manufactures to participate and compete in the program—thus giving most of the business to the suppliers with the lowest cost and highest quality. Conversely, if we made only 10 items per year and spent $100 million on my list of cost-reducing items, the added cost would be $1,000 thousand per item. So there you have it—modern day mass production 101. The problem will be to make a 10 thousand unit per year financial

commitment without prior installation agreements.

To emphasize my point even further, let’s use the below cartoon illustration and show how the on-site hydrogen dispensing unit can be made in a factory and delivered to a service station:

Small Scale Modular Hydrogen Gas Dispensing System —Delivery and Installation—

As you look at this illustration, I would like for you to notice two important features. The first is the ability to deliver – by tractor-trailer — a complete unit for on-site assembly. The only thing required is for the recipient to pour a concrete foundation with imbedded connector studs, natural gas and water piping, electrical connections, and an adjacent drive through. The second thing to notice is that the factory-made equipment can be stored and preserved on a vacant lot until it is ready for delivery. In other words, the factory can proceed with mass production long before there are locations prepared for them to be installed. In fact, because the external cover serves as a shipping container, there is very little waste in the process. Because recipients of the equipment may have color and decal preferences, the factory’s paint facility could accommodate varying requests. Also, by using painted aluminum and stainless steel hardware, a shipable unit could sit in outdoor storage for years without significant deterioration. This feature could be advantageous when considering how long it might take for the market to develop—even if the units are installed free of charge. As much as we might like to think that most service stations will want to take advantage of a good thing there will always be some inertia—especially in the beginning when there are very few hydrogen-fueled cars available to consume the fuel. But when the ball starts rolling— service station owners will see the benefits—and our large inventory of units will be ready. As stated earlier since we are giving 6 million Honda style home refueling units to the first people to get into the hydrogen line, it shouldn’t take long for the ball to start rolling. Oh—by the way, I have included an LED advertising display that may interest some potential service station owners to get started right away—even if there are minimal hydrogen sales. After all it would be free.

Needless to say most people would prefer that hydrogen be available at a service station and that Honda’s home refueling unit not be a requirement. However, let’s compare the home refueling unit that produces hydrogen for $1 or $2 per

kilogram with an over the road purchase price of $4 per kilogram. At 15,000 miles per year and sixty miles per gallon—a la the Honda FCX—the yearly cost at $1.00 kilogram would be $250 versus $1,000 at $4 per kilogram. If the refueling unit were to cost about $8,000 (my unconfirmed estimate), it would take about nine years—assuming constant dollars and home electricity savings— to pay for itself. On the other hand, the home refueling unit could last as much as 20 to 25 years. So after paying it off, the net long-term savings could be substantial. It would be even more substantial if the owner also had a hydrogenfueled internal combustion engine vehicle that gets forty-two miles per gallon (because more hydrogen fuel would be required).

After giving the subject of home refueling some additional thought, it occurred to me that paying only $2 equivalent gallon of hydrogen could have a moneymaking benefit to an individual car owner. The problem is that Honda’s refueling unit is designed to produce about 4 kilograms of hydrogen per day at a slow refilling rate. However, the average fuel cell car owner may only need to refill about 4 kilograms each week. As a result, the refueling unit would be underutilized. Therefore, if the Honda unit was used to fuel more cars, the cost recovery time would be substantially less. With this thought in mind, how about sharing the home refueling unit with neighbors who also have hydrogen-fueled cars? In effect, if six cars could be topped off each week at $2 per equivalent gallon of savings per car, the 15,000 miles per year owners could each save about $500 or more per year—or a total of $3,000 per year. When the $8,000 home refueling unit is paid off in less than three years, the remaining seventeen years of the unit’s life could yield a substantial return on investment. However, from a practical standpoint, which car owner will have the energy-saving advantage of having the refueling unit installed in their garage? Since the six car neighborhood group would need an overnight fill-up, it could become logistical problem. Therefore, to solve this problem, let’s modify the Honda unit to refuel cars in about three minutes. This might be done by adding a larger high-pressure storage tank and possibly another hydrogen compressor. If these components added $2,000 to the unit’s cost, the payoff would still be about three years, but the three-minute fueling time would be worth the added expense.

By the way, perhaps some entrepreneurs might see the benefit of investing in the

six car per week hydrogen fueling unit and charge $4 per equivalent gasoline gallon. By selling 25 kilograms of pressurized hydrogen per week at a $3 profit per kilogram, the yearly gross income would be $3,900 per year. By amortizing the $10 thousand machine over ten years at 5 percent, the net profit could be about $2,600 per year. It could be a new form of vending machine business without the hassle of weekly restocking. By installing fifty machines at convenient locations throughout a city, an investor could make a comfortable yearly income of up to $130 thousand.

In any event, we will need to have hydrogen fuel available over the road, even for the home refuelers. This then gets back to my assumption of $300 thousand for the small-scale hydrogen-processing and dispensing unit. If Linde, Air Products, Praxair, or some other company would mass produce these units, the cost would unquestionably come down to an installed price tag of $300 thousand or less. So in this regard, let’s assume that 50 million Social Security investors put up the $30 billion to install 100,000 hydrogen-processing and dispensing systems—$300 per investor. As a result of this investment, we could service about fifty vehicles per day at each service facility. If we assume that each vehicle is refueled once per week, each facility could fuel about 350 vehicles. When multiplying 350 vehicles by 100,000 service stations, the result is 35 million vehicles. However, there are about 257 million enger vehicles operating in the United States, and 35 million comprises only about 14 percent of the total. So in the longer run, we will need a more substantial hydrogen supply system than the small-scale reforming unit that I have described. In fact, we will need to get back to having central fuel-processing stations that deliver liquefied hydrogen via tanker trucks. Hydrogen liquefaction adds about $0.45 to each kilogram of hydrogen fuel at an off-peak electricity cost of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, which means it will cost about $2 per kilogram of reformed liquefied hydrogen for delivery—by the oil companies to service stations— assuming $5 per 1,000 cubic feet for natural gas. A lower natural gas to reformed hydrogen equipment price will result from both mass production of these larger facilities and economies of scale. In this case, my proposed hydrogen fuel consortium will sell the fuel to the oil companies at a wholesale price of $3 per kilogram. Oil company profits, service station profits, federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes will then apply. This should result in a consumer price of about $4 kilogram at the service station pump.

My plan is for hundreds of 30,000 kilograms per day natural gas to liquefied hydrogen central processing facilities to be built each year for thirty years. The liquefied hydrogen will be picked up and delivered to service stations by tractortrailers, owned by the oil companies, like the one shown below:

Liquefied Hydrogen Tractor-Trailer Courtesy of the Phoenix Project Foundation

When the tanker truck arrives at the service station, the liquefied hydrogen will be transferred to an underground storage tank, like the one described below:

As you can see, the liquefied hydrogen provides both liquefied and high-pressure hydrogen to fuel a vehicle. Fueling with liquefied hydrogen is shown in the photograph below:

Fueling with either 5,000 psi or 10,000 psi hydrogen gas could be accomplished as shown in the photograph below:

Pressurized Hydrogen Gas Refueling Station

In either case, refilling your hydrogen-fueled vehicle will not be much different from what is currently being done today with gasoline.

Before leaving this discussion, I would be remiss if I didn’t include trucks and tractor-trailers in establishing a beginning infrastructure. There are approximately 13.5 million trucks and about 2 million tractor-trailers currently operating in the United States. Straight trucks generally return to a depot each night after deliveries, whereas tractor-trailers generally travel long distances over major roadways. If we could provide truck depots with hydrogen fuel and hydrogen dispensing units at service stations along major roadways, we could make a significant impact upon starting a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Why —because 30 percent of our fuel usage is for goods and services provided by these vehicles.

Rather than converting existing diesel engines to run on hydrogen fuel only, we could make a compromise which is to use a 60 percent hydrogen and 40 percent diesel fuel blend. This will allow existing trucks and tractor-trailers to retain the option of having the same mileage range as they previously did with diesel only, if hydrogen is not available.

The 60/40 ratio is based upon research done at the University of Tasmania. Their results show that electronically controlled blending of 60 percent hydrogen and 40 percent diesel fuel will result in 20% more power and eliminate nitrogen oxides. It is not clear how much additional mileage per gallon of fuel can be obtained, but with complete combustion with leaner mixtures during idle and at low-power operating conditions, a significant improvement should result.

Using the 60/40 mixture, we can replace 18 percent of our diesel fuel usage, which amounts to 63 percent of our Middle East oil imports. To implement the program in a reasonable amount of time, I recommend retrofitting 3 million trucks and tractor-trailers during the first ten years. This will result in about a 3.5 percent reduction in current diesel fuel usage in the United States which will result in a 12 percent reduction in Middle East imports.

Because of the potential benefits to the truck and tractor-trailer owners, I would have our consortium subsidize the retrofit and hydrogen dispensing facilities during the first ten years to get the program started.

Chapter 4

The Energy Independence Act

First we need a “mandate,” from the citizens of the United States and then we need the president to announce, during a State of the Union address, that he (or she) has submitted an oil and hydrogen initiative plan to Congress for approval. When the plan is approved, the president will make a major televised address. Here is my version of the speech that the president might make:

“My fellow Americans, because of the exponentially increasing demand for global oil reserves, it has now become a clear and present danger to our country and to the world.” Since the United States imports about fifty percent of its oil from the Middle East and other nations, we must act decisively to reverse this trend. Therefore, your congress and I have concluded that we need an all-out oil exploration and drilling program, which will be called the “Energy Independence Act.”

Since oil exploration and drilling can take between five to ten years to produce tangible results, the United States will supplement the oil drilling program with a slow but steady transition to hydrogen as our primary transportation fuel. Although the transition to hydrogen may take as many as forty years to complete, its implementation will eliminate our dependence upon Middle East oil imports in ten years.

We can no longer afford to transfer our wealth to other countries while our own economic well being is at stake and the risk of rising oil prices looms ominously over our head. To this end, I have directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior to remove all regulatory impediments to oil and natural gas exploration and to make Federal lands available for this purpose. The United States can triple its oil resources by drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and other federal lands and coastal regions, and we need begin right now. This action will lessen our dependence on imported oil, create thousands of new jobs, and assuredly bring down the price of gasoline at the pump.

Many people have been asking the question “why hasn’t the United States started a hydrogen fuel initiative as one of the steps toward freeing itself from imported oil and creating new jobs?” After much study and consultation with experts, the congress and I have concluded that the gradual introduction of hydrogen fuel for our cars and trucks will not only help to free us from imported oil and create jobs, but when done in an innovative way, it can also help to save the Social Security program. Over a period of time, we can reallocate the almost 500 billion dollars being spent each year to purchase oil from other countries to that of ing a hydrogen consortium comprised of Social Security investors.

Let me be clear, although many people still hang on to the outdated belief that hydrogen is decades away, the truth is hydrogen has been proven to be as safe to use as gasoline, and the technology is ready now. The only impediment is our will to make it happen. Therefore, I have directed the Social Security istration to set up a privately held hydrogen consortium that will allow workers between the ages of twenty-five and fifty to invest in their retirement future. The consortium will regulate a hydrogen fuel supply program that will be funded by about 50 million investors. The program will be completely voluntary and will result in a fifty thousand dollar bonus—that is adjusted for inflation, when the twenty-five-year-old worker participant reaches the age of sixty-five. The bonus amount for the older participants will begin at about twelve thousand dollars with a steadily increasing amount for each additional year of participation. The only requirement is for the volunteer participants to invest three thousand dollars over a ten-year period. To help with this requirement, low interest loans and subsidies will be made available to those who qualify for assistance.

Here is how the program works. The hydrogen fuel supply consortium will sell liquefied hydrogen to the oil companies for a wholesale price of about $3 per equivalent gasoline gallon. This will generate continually growing revenues from increasing hydrogen usage. These revenues will not only provide the money needed for the retirement bonuses but will also provide money needed to

help shore up the current Social Security program for all current and future contributors. Rather than spending 500 billion dollars each year for imported oil, the money will be spent in the United States, with the Social Security program becoming the beneficiaries.

The proposed plan is for fifteen percent of all vehicles in the United States to run on hydrogen fuel in ten years, and one hundred percent in forty years. Since the beginning participants in the program will have a direct influence on the outcome of the program, they will have the ability to accelerate the forty year transition to hydrogen process. If 100 percent transition to hydrogen fuel happens in less than forty years, the worker’s payroll tax contribution to the Social Security program could be substantially reduced.

The beauty of this plan is that the investors in the hydrogen fuel consortium will become both the suppliers and the consumers. As a result, they will have an incentive to control costs, improve efficiencies, and keep the selling price at the gas station pump low.

To jump start the hydrogen initiative, I have authorized the Social Security istration to divert 50 billion dollars over the next three years from the Social Security Trust Fund. This money will be used to set up the hydrogen consortium, pay for retrofitting one hundred thousand gas stations with hydrogen refueling facilities, and incentivize 38 million vehicle owners—over a ten-year period—who are willing to install a hydrogen fuel tank in their car or truck or buy new hydrogen-fueled vehicles. The owners of dual fuel tank vehicles will have the ability to run on either hydrogen or gasoline to assure over the road fuel availability and maximum range between fuel stops. The initial incentive for these owners will be four thousand dollars for the vehicle retrofit in addition up to 3 million free home refueling units that will reform natural gas into hydrogen for about $2 per equivalent gasoline gallon. Automotive manufacturers will also be provided with pricing incentives with early buyer participants receiving up to 3 million free home refueling units.

My plan is to have the hydrogen consortium operational within the next four months. At that time, private companies will be asked to bid on the construction of hydrogen production facilities, becoming a certified gas station retrofit company, becoming a certified hydrogen fuel tank manufacturing facility, and becoming a certified hydrogen fuel tank retrofit facility. To accelerate the bidding process, preliminary guidelines are currently available at www.hydrogenconsortium.gov. If you are a company or individual who would like to participate in this program, please fill out the form provided at this website and forward it for review.

With regard to the voluntary investments, twenty-four to fifty-year-old workers will have up to one year to decide if they want to participate. I believe that when these workers realize that their investment would be much better than almost any alternative investment opportunity, most will want to take advantage of this lucrative offer. I also believe that most workers will participate to help insure that the money that they are currently contributing to the Social Security program will be returned to them when they retire.

Time does not permit me to go into all the nuances of this program, but rest assured, your government has heard your voices, and we are taking these extraordinary steps in response. After examining this program in detail, I believe that you will be surprised and pleased by the many other spin-off benefits that will be derived from its implementation.

My fellow Americans, we are at a crucial moment in the history of the United States. The time for complacency is over. The era of wasting the world’s diminishing supply of fossil fuels must end. This is the time for us to act boldly and decisively. I am confident that the path that we are about to take will insure the economic survival of this great nation, and as you will discover, it will in many ways provide for the betterment of mankind.

The transition to hydrogen fuel will benefit all the world’s people, not just the

people living in the United States. Since the long-term focus of our program will be to make hydrogen from water, we will help to preserve our oil reserves for other usages, such as pharmaceuticals, plastics, tires, asphalt, and lubricants. Moreover, because we will develop new energy technologies and reduce hydrogen fuel costs though economies of scale, everyone on planet Earth will reap its rewards.

In closing, I am certain that the American Spirit will rise to meet this new and formidable challenge as it has risen to meet many challenges in its past. This is a time for America to once again show its greatness by demonstrating its resolve, and by so doing lead the world to a new and brighter future. Our love of country, our love of freedom, our love of justice, and our comion for those who are less fortunate sets us apart as a nation. We are the light of the world. We are a shining city on a hill. We are the last best hope for mankind, and we intend to remain that way until poverty, hunger, and despair are eliminated. Our ultimate goal is for all the world’s population to participate in the wonders of our modern industrial age and the benefits of recent medical achievements.

Thank you for listening, God bless you all, and good night.”

This announcement from the president summarizes a very long-term and farreaching plan that contains many facets, but its intent can be easily understood. In the days following the speech, more and more detail will be described by the media. As the details are described, many opposition groups will probably form for various reasons. As a result, the pros and cons will probably be aired in televised debates. In the meantime, the process will go forward since it will have become law.

I believe that in the long run, even the opposition groups will come to see the many hidden benefits that the plan has to offer and that the problems that they thought were real will not materialize. They will realize that drilling for oil and natural gas was not as bad for the environment as they had originally thought,

and that it was really a necessary first step to getting to where they would like to be—having a fuel that does not pollute the environment. They will begin to realize that fission nuclear power is an acceptable tradeoff to continued use of fossil fuels and that fission nuclear is just a bridge to fusion nuclear. They will see that wind and solar energy sources will be deployed in new and more costeffective ways that will eventually benefit poverty-stricken people around the world. They will find that the plan includes providing fresh water to replenish our fast depleting Ogallala Aquifer in a way that doesn’t damage the environment. They will discover that new cropland will be developed that can feed a growing world population. They will rediscover the zeppelin and how it will help mankind to become economically self-sufficient.

Of course, when the opposition grows old and receives their Social Security checks and bonus money, they will look back and ask—what was it that I was against?

Chapter 5

A Brief Overview

As a retired engineer, in my seventies, I now have a chance to reflect upon the things that I learned during my working years. Ever since I can , I have had a ion for technology and science. As a young engineer in the 1960s and 1970s working for Westinghouse’s Nuclear Steam Generator Division, I became fascinated by the idea of harnessing nuclear energy to generate electricity. I believed at that time that the entire world would eventually be powered in this way. I just took it for granted that fission nuclear would eventually run its course, and fusion nuclear would take over later. After all, one small thimblesized pellet of fissionable nuclear fuel could replace 450 pounds of coal. Better yet, if “breeder” reactors were used, one small nuclear fuel pellet could be recycled to replace 27,000 pounds of coal. Ultimately, when fusion reactors came into being, the nuclear fuel would be derived mostly from our almost unlimited supply of water. It was so logical, what could go wrong? Well, we all know what went wrong. After the Chernobyl incident in Russia, it was all over. The public didn’t want to take the risk that another nuclear accident might occur, and as a result, most of the nuclear industry was shut down, including my job as a “breeder” reactor steam generator designer. In spite of this shutdown, hundreds of existing nuclear power plants continued to run safely. Unfortunately, because Chernobyl was improperly designed, it gave the whole industry a bad name. With a properly designed nuclear plant, the odds against a Chernobyl-like accident are astronomical, as demonstrated by the Fukushima incident in Japan.

In spite of misunderstandings by the hysterical media regarding the Fukushima accident, it turns out that my beliefs as a young engineer have been vindicated. Nuclear power was, and still is, the wave of the future. It is the wave of the future because the alternatives have serious problems. In spite of what many people have been led to believe, wind and solar power, when deployed in their current form, will not get the job done.

As I look at what’s going on today with regard to energy, I cannot help but roll my eyes in disbelief. Doesn’t anyone in our government know how to do simple arithmetic? On one hand, there are those who would like to stop using fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar. Then there are those who believe

that drilling for more oil and natural gas will save the day. In my opinion, drilling for oil and natural gas is only partially correct, and the wind and solar advocates are not being realistic.

In this book, I will explain in great detail why wind and solar just ain’t going to cut it if they are continued in their current form. But if producing hydrogen in remotely located energy parks is the objective, these sources of energy may stand a chance of survival. Drilling for more oil and natural gas is going in the right direction but needs to be accompanied by phasing in hydrogen as our primary transportation fuel.

Common sense would say that the United States Social Security program is broken. If continued on its current course, workers who are about forty years old or less will receive substantially less money than they are currently contributing. This is unfair, and it is why I have devised a hydrogen solution to help correct the problem.

As stated earlier, I would take the almost $500 billion that oil companies spend each year on imported oil and give it to future Social Security recipients. Assuming today’s 58 million Social Security recipients, the $500 billion would equal about $8,620 per year per person—in today’s dollars. With the current average being about $12,500 per year per recipient, we would be supplementing more than 68 percent of the program and help make it solvent.

I know you are thinking that this is much too simplistic and does not for the dynamics of fewer worker contributors and longer life spans. So let me clarify some things that will help to fill in the blanks. To begin, if we were to become energy independent, the oil company’s $500 billion could be spent in the United States. Moreover, if the Social Security contributors became the producers of the oil, they could use the money to help their retirement program. In this case, however, substitute the word oil for hydrogen and assume that the oil companies pay a wholesale price of $3 per equivalent gasoline gallon

of hydrogen.

As you might imagine, saving Social Security is a long-term process, but so is the Social Security program. And as you might also imagine, development of a hydrogen infrastructure will require a significant up-front expenditure, but with 50 million or more investors wouldn’t their combined contributions be significant?

Before going further, I want to provide an analogy that might explain how profits are made from the sale of oil.

Between March 1975 and May 1977, the Alaska pipeline was built at a cost of $8 billion dollars. Using a sales price of $70 per barrel of oil, it currently generates sales of about $25 billion per year. How is that for a return on investment?!

The four-foot-diameter pipeline traversed over 800 miles and crossed over more than 800 rivers and streams and several mountain ranges, and at its peak employed almost twenty-one thousand workers that received triple wages. As you might imagine, the around the clock work days were conducted under some of the harshest conditions possible for an outdoor construction project, but because of the wage incentive, workers were willing to do what was needed to complete the pipeline in record time.

What if we could begin a project that would employ more than 100 thousand high-wage workers and provide a similar return on investment? Would you be interested in investing your own money to pay for it? In my opinion, if the project was backed by the United States Government, I believe that the response would be overwhelmingly favorable. In fact, we would probably need to limit the amount that could be invested per individual or family.

Before getting into the details, let’s assume that 50 million current workers between the ages of twenty-five to fifty invest about $3 thousand over a ten-year time period. As a result, they are guaranteed the traditional Social Security income plus a bonus of up to $50 thousand at age sixty-five. Moreover, the Social Security program would also be guaranteed for all new participants. If they invest $3 thousand, they will also receive the $50 thousand bonus. Imagine, instead of young workers believing that little or no Social Security money will be available when they retire, they can now be assured that not only will the money be available, but it will also be accompanied by a substantial lump sum bonus. For a $3,000 investment to become $50 thousand in forty years, it would need to have a compound interest rate of more than 7.2 percent. This alone is a pretty good incentive—wouldn’t you say? Besides, the $3 thousand investment

is adjusted for inflation. If the yearly inflation rate was 2 percent, the $3 thousand investment would be $105 thousand.

Is this just a pie in the sky pipedream, or is it a real and achievable goal? Needless to say, I believe that it is very much a reality that can and should be implemented. Using the money supplied by 50 million Social Security investors, a hydrogen infrastructure can be established by producing hydrogen from natural gas at thousands of locations around the United States. If the oil companies decide to participate, they will set up, at their expense, a distribution network that includes hydrogen tanker trucks and gas station retrofits. If the oil companies decide not to participate, the Social Security investors could pay for the distribution network and increase their profits when the program takes hold (in my opinion, it wouldn’t make sense for the oil companies not to participate when they see the handwriting on the wall). When the first stage of a hydrogen infrastructure is established, demand for hydrogen fuel will come from the general population when they find that they can save a significant amount of money on transportation fuel and also contribute to their retirement income. As a minimum, since an internal combustion engine vehicle can run on hydrogen, it would make sense for many people to install hydrogen fuel tanks in their car’s trunk. As an incentive, the hydrogen consortium will pay for the retrofit and guarantee a lower fuel price. Additionally, by increasing the rate of my projected demand for hydrogen, the return on investment would be improved. In other words, 50 million Social Security investors will have a vested interest in growing the hydrogen infrastructure as fast as possible.

In of what we need to do and when we need to do it, my plan begins with producing hydrogen from natural gas during the first forty years, but capped at about 30 percent of the hydrogen produced. Eventually, all hydrogen will be produced from water using the electrolysis and thermo-chemical processes—no fossil fuels will be required. These processes will require a variety of renewable energy sources and nuclear power. To reduce the overall costs of producing hydrogen, I propose that we include building a water pipeline or aqueduct from the Missouri River to the Sonora and Mojave Deserts. The pipeline or aqueduct will serve several purposes, among which is to reduce hydrogen production costs by providing water to cool the reactors (no expensive cooling towers will be

needed), and to provide water that will be used to produce hydrogen (two and one half gallons of water is required to produce one equivalent gallon of hydrogen). My proposed pipeline or aqueduct will also help to stop depleting water from the Ogallala Aquifer, minimize or eliminate river overflow flooding, and help turn the Sonora and Mojave deserts into beautiful towns and productive cropland.

As previously mentioned, the Social Security investors will sell liquefied hydrogen to the oil companies at a wholesale price of $3 per equivalent gasoline gallon of liquefied hydrogen—in today’s dollars. The oil companies will then sell the liquefied hydrogen at the gas station pump for about $4. The additional $1 would include federal and state taxes, local distribution costs, oil company profits, and gas station profits. Since specifically designed internal combustion engine and hydrogen fuel cell cars and trucks will get between 25 and 100 percent better gas mileage, $4 per hydrogen gallon will be equivalent to paying between $3.20 and $2 per gallon of gasoline respectively.

Besides helping to save America’s Social Security program, the benefits of my proposed hydrogen and oil initiative will include the following:

1. Becoming energy independent in 10 years—imported oil is currently costing the United States about $500 billion per year. This transfer of America’s wealth will be the source of monies needed to the Social Security program. The impact upon oil companies will be minimal.

2. Providing high-paying long-term jobs for millions of workers.

3. Increasing America’s economic growth by exporting liquefied hydrogen, hydrogen producing equipment, and domestically produced oil.

4. Extending nuclear fuel by about sixty times by employing the proven technology of 20-megawatt (EBR II style) modular “breeder” reactors— currently known uranium reserves can only existing water-cooled fission nuclear power plants for about fifty more years.

5. Eliminating long-term radioactive waste materials by employing “breeder” reactors.

6. Reducing nuclear energy costs by employing factory mass produced and standardized modular reactors and steam-generating equipment, similar to navy nuclear systems.

7. Reviving the zeppelin to transport liquefied hydrogen—large-scale remotecontrolled zeppelins can transport hydrogen at much less cost than pipelines and have a much greater range.

8. Reducing renewable energy construction costs by using remote-controlled zeppelins—zeppelins eliminate the need for expensive roadways to move equipment and materials into and out of remote construction sites—a key to making wind and solar energy cost-effective.

9. Increasing automotive gas mileage to about seventy miles per equivalent gasoline gallon using competitively priced hydrogen-fueled cars

10. Building a water pipeline or aqueduct in of remotely located hydrogen production facilities will have the added benefit of saving the Ogallala

Aquifer from eventual depletion—The Ogallala’s underground water is currently being used to grow crops in what’s called “America’s Breadbasket,” but water is currently being extracted ten times faster than it is being replenished.

11. The pipeline or aqueduct will minimize or eliminate flooding due to river overflows—flooding was the number one natural disaster in the United States during the twentieth century in of lost lives and property damage.

12. The pipeline or aqueduct will help transform the Sonora and Mojave Deserts into productive cropland and a sought after retirement location—a la California’s Coachella Valley.

13. Increasing America’s crop yield will help to feed the world’s exponentially growing population—the world’s population is expected to grow from today’s 7.0 billion to about 9.2 billion by the year 2050.

Obviously, there is much more to my proposed oil and hydrogen initiative than what I have just described in this brief overview, and thus the reason for this book.

Chapter 6

The Big Picture

So what can we do to insure that all the earth’s population has access to abundant and economically produced energy resources in the near and long-term future? Is there enough land to produce biofuels, wind power, and solar power and still feed a growing world population? Is there enough uranium to produce fission nuclear power? What about geothermal and hydroelectric? Will fusion nuclear power become a reality? Can we derive enough power from our oceans? Is space going to provide the answer?

To answer these provocative questions, I will begin with a brief description of the various options so that misconceptions can be put aside.

Wind Power

Let’s begin by discussing wind power. If you have read my book A Sense of Urgency, you probably know that I am a proponent of wind power. You will also find that I believe our current wind power strategy is not going to get us to where we need to be. To understand what I mean, let’s discuss wind power in the state of Minnesota.

Not too long ago, my wife visited Pipestone Minnesota where she picked up a brochure from the US Department of the Interior regarding wind turbines located in the state. When I read the brochure, it sounded very impressive as it touted the fact that 1,100−$2.5 million—1,650 kilowatt wind turbines had combined to produce 2 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. However, when I did some simple arithmetic, I found that these turbines produced an average of only 228.3 kilowatts per hour of intermittent power, which is only 13.83 percent of their rated capacity. To put this into perspective, a conventional fossil fired or nuclear power plant can produce dependable—on demand—electricity for about one-third of the wind turbine life cycle cost even though the wind is free. As if

their cost and intermittent power output was not enough of a problem, these wind turbines occupied about 150 times the land area normally required for conventional electric power generation. Moreover, in addition to their “visual blight,” they create a disturbing noise when operating in high winds and have a propensity for killing birds.

Wind turbine costs have decreased significantly over the past two decades and will continue to drop—albeit at a lesser rate—with technological innovation and increased volume. Additionally, the idea of distributed wind farms is currently becoming popular, since if they are interconnected, in a grid fashion, they will tend to offset the lack of wind from one location to another. However, there is a glitch that no one seems to be addressing in a logical way. The glitch is that the wind turbines need to be very large in order to be more efficient and costeffective. Because of their large size, they pose significant factory to site logistics problems. To give you an idea of the logistics problems, consider this. Minnesota’s 1,100—1.65-megawatt $2.5 million wind turbines have a pedestal base diameter of 16 feet, run 30 feet into the ground, and weigh 2.9 million pounds. Imagine delivering these pedestals and their enormous blades from a remote factory to the installation site. Now imagine dealing with a much larger 5-megawatt wind turbine with blades that are 206 feet long—see the photo below to emphasize the point that I am trying to make!

The Problem with Transporting Wind Turbine Blades

To further exacerbate the issue, land usage can become a huge problem if the United States intends to produce a large percentage of electricity using wind turbines. To explain what I mean, if only 30 percent of our electricity was derived from 1.65-megawatt wind turbines, they would occupy a land area equivalent to almost all of North and South Dakota. If 5-megawatt turbines were used, they would occupy only the land equivalent of almost all the state of North Dakota. I chose using these states for a reason, since according to the “wind map” below, most of the class 4 to 5 annual winds are located in the High Plains corridor adjacent to the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains.

This area is not only far removed from high energy use regions of the country, but most of it has also been called the “breadbasket of the United States.” It is the “breadbasket” because the land sits on top of one of the largest underground fresh water supplies in the world—the Ogallala Aquifer—more on this later.

Because of their huge land area requirements, high costs, intermittent and unreliable wind conditions, and high electric transmission losses, it’s obvious that we need to find a single solution that addresses all of these issues. In my opinion, we need to look “outside the box,” while at the same time, considering other energy alternatives that will result in an overall comprehensive energy strategy in which all the pieces of the energy puzzle fit together.

To address the land use and cost issues, related to wind turbines, I propose building several large remotely located energy parks that utilize renewable, and possibly nonrenewable energy systems. Because movable factories could be located on each site, the cost issues related to wind turbine transportation would be minimized and a form of mass production could be devised. Moreover, since other proposed energy systems are integrated into my proposed system, the land area requirement and cost of each “piggybacked” energy system could be significantly reduced, while at the same time, the issue of intermittent and unreliable wind conditions could be ameliorated.

Although my proposal may sound like an answer, the problem of electric transmission line losses would become a major issue in the economic equation. To reduce the electric transmission line losses, I propose using superconductivity. In case you are unfamiliar with the term “superconductivity,” I will summarize by saying that electric power can be transmitted without line losses when the transmission wires are at a very low temperature. As an additional benefit it was shown, in one instance, that 18,000 pounds of copper wire could be replaced by only 250 pounds of superconducting wire. The problem is that the cost of currently proposed cooling systems outweighs the benefit. On the other hand, high temperature superconductivity has been demonstrated in the laboratory and when ready for commercialization—in about 5 years—will—in my opinion—be a “game changer.” In the meanwhile, my proposed energy parks could be used to generate hydrogen—which could be exported via long distance pipelines or zeppelins—to fuel our cars.

Solar Power

Solar energy-producing systems can take many forms; however, most people are familiar with photovoltaic “solar s.” Although Southern California Edison is currently constructing more than 1,000 megawatts (peak rated output) of solar electricity, I believe that this form of electric power needs further

development before it can compete with conventional forms of large-scale power generation. I say this because the typical solar , using low-cost “thin film” technology, is capable of converting only about 17 percent of the sun’s energy into electricity, and during a typical day and night, only about 15 percent of this energy is available. In other words, if we had a square mile of photovoltaic solar s operating in a southern desert, we would get about forty-two megawatts of power during a sunny day, but over a 24-hour period, only about 6.3 megawatts of power will be generated (these numbers for energy reductions due to sunrise and sunset, dust accumulation, and proper spacing).

While the capital cost for photovoltaic solar s has dropped dramatically over recent years from about $25 per watt to about $1 per watt, the installed price is still about twice that of conventional power generation—even when conventional power fuel costs are taken into . On the other hand, “thin film” silicon-based photovoltaic solar s appear to be on the verge of a breakthrough. This breakthrough uses nanotechnology that allows sunlight to become trapped in a 3 versus 2-dimension arrangement. As a result, about 25 to 30 percent of the sun’s rays could be captured rather than 17 percent. According to my arithmetic, if 30 percent efficiency could be obtained and the price were to drop to $0.50 per watt, we would be at a breakeven point with conventional power. However, a 1,000-megawatt solar plant would require about 70 square miles of land (about 9 miles x 8 miles) versus about 1.2 square miles for a conventional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plant.

Nuclear Power

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan has left many people believing that nuclear power is no longer a viable energy option. I disagree, nuclear power is not only where we should be going, it is, in my opinion, where we must go! I don’t want to minimize the consequences and hardships caused by the Fukushima nuclear reactors, but we need to put things into perspective.

Before the earthquake, Japan had 55 water-cooled reactors that generated about 30 percent of its electricity, and they are all located in earthquake-prone zones. Although the reactors at the Fukushima site were affected, the other reactors survived without damage. And as you may know by now, the Fukushima reactors have been brought under control with no known loss of life. With regard to radiation that was released into the atmosphere, the concern has been greatly exaggerated. As stated by Ted Rockwell, a noted Manhattan Project scientist “People around the world live in radiation levels that are much higher than is present in the Fukushima evacuation zone without showing any ill effects.”

After all, the Fukushima accident was caused by an unprecedented magnitude 9.0 earthquake that was later followed by a major tsunami. When looked at as a whole, the earthquake and tsunami caused much more loss of life and property than the Fukushima plant. Damage by exploding oil tanks, burst gas mains, electrical fires, and other forms of devastation were much more harmful to the Japanese population.

Although engineers had designed the Fukushima reactors to withstand large magnitude earthquakes, and other events, such as the impact of a large jet airliner, they were apparently not designed to lose backup electric power when inundated by a tsunami. When flooding caused backup diesel generators to become inoperable, the pumped water needed to cool the reactor cores could not be provided. However, due to the successful implementation of extraordinary measures, the reactors and spent fuel rods were cooled, and the resulting damage was minimal, especially when compared to the Russian Chernobyl disaster.

I am not going to go into all the redundant safety aspects of well-designed modern-day nuclear power plants, but I can assure you from my firsthand knowledge as an engineer who worked along side Westinghouse’s nuclear scientists and engineers, the chance of a major “Chernobyl-like” accident is statistically impossible. However, since the extremely unlikely Japanese incident did happen, we will learn from it and incorporate appropriate backup safety systems in present and future nuclear plants.

With the above being said, the 438 nuclear power plants that are currently operating around the world provide about 17 percent of the world’s electric power. Another thirty plants are under construction and 104 more plants are in the planning stage. 103 of the total number of operating nuclear plants are in the United States and provide about 20 percent of our electric power. Nuclear power plants have an almost flawless forty-year track record, and we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, we should be aware that fissionable nuclear fuel is not an unlimited resource. At the current worldwide consumption rate, the world’s known uranium reserves will only provide about fifty-two more years of fuel. Moreover, if all the world’s electric power was derived from currently designed fission nuclear plants, our known uranium reserves would be depleted in about nine years. So what can be done?

Because uranium is a limited and nonrenewable resource, a different type of reactor is needed to extend the uranium fuel supply. It’s called a “breeder” reactor. Although the “breeder” reactor can extend the duration of uranium usage by about sixty times, a different style of breeder reactor called the very high temperature reactor (VHTR) can also extend uranium usage, but only about thirteen times. Instead of generating electricity, the VHTR can be used to economically produce hydrogen fuel from water using what is called the sulfuriodine thermochemical process—which I will explain later. While many people remain fearful of having too many fission-type nuclear reactors, I would ask that you consider them as a bridge to a future that utilizes nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fusion is derived from water; it does not create radioactive waste and it cannot experience a meltdown, but it is still in an experimental stage. In my opinion, it may require thirty to fifty more years before it becomes a viable energy source. While fusion derived from water may be the ultimate energy source, I believe that it is just another bridge to the next step—helium-3.

Helium-3 is found on the Moon and in the upper atmospheres of the gaseous planets and does not occur naturally on planet Earth. Nuclear scientists will

readily agree that helium-3 is the best fuel for a fusion reaction and has the potential for direct conversion to electricity. If so, it may one day be possible to miniaturize the process to where it could fuel an automobile or provide, from one tank full, enough electricity for the life expectancy of a home.

Chapter 7

Energy Alternatives

Although I have already discussed some energy alternatives to fossil fuel in the last chapter, I will now go into some more detail about some interesting innovations about which you may not be aware.

Wind Power

Wind Turbines

The most common way in which wind energy is harnessed is the propeller and pedestal wind turbine. Because of the large land area requirements for wind power, its high cost, noise generation, bird kill, and its intermittent and unreliable wind conditions, it seems obvious to me that we need to find a single solution that addresses all of these issues or abandon the idea completely. As previously mentioned, to address the wind turbine issues, I propose building large remotely located hybrid energy parks that combine several renewable and possibly nonrenewable energy systems. Because of the large number of wind turbines required, factories could be located on each site, and the cost issues related to wind turbine transportation would be minimized. In fact, building on site allows us to take advantage of making much larger wind turbines that will significantly reduce cost and land usage requirements. In a later chapter, I will discuss the advantages of building 12-megawatt wind turbines.

Air Rotors

Most people probably consider propeller and pedestal wind turbines to be the only way of capturing the wind’s energy, however, have you ever heard about “floating air rotors?” See the illustration below:

Floating Air Rotors Courtesy of Magenn Power Systems

The floating air rotor is a helium-filled rotating blimp that generates electricity via transmission cables connected to a power station on the ground. In the wind energy business, it is well known that wind energy increases by about 34 percent with a doubling of height. Therefore, the air rotor has the advantage of capturing higher velocity winds than its propeller-driven wind turbine counterpart. In addition, air rotors can be set at varying altitudes to prevent one rotor from blocking the wind of another—a big advantage with regard to land area usage. Since they don’t require monstrous pedestals and blades, delivery to a deployment site can be much less of a cost problem. However, current air rotor costs are not competitive with the propeller and pedestal design, mostly because of counterproductive forces acting upon the “air scoops” as they make their circular path. However, perhaps the wind turbine pedestals, in the above mentioned hybrid energy parks, could provide the air rotors with the altitude needed to make them competitive. The increased altitude would result from not having to lift the very heavy transmission cables to the height of the pedestal.

Autogiros

At 25,000 feet, there is a Jet-stream between 20 and 40 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere. This Jet-stream is the mother lode in wind power— generating between 5,000 and 10,000 watts per square meter. If this wind power could be captured, it could provide consistent and reliable electric power. At present, there is at least one design on the drawing boards at Sky Wind Power— see the illustration below. The Autogiros shown in this illustration use powered counter-rotating blades to rise above 10,000 feet and then switch to a generating mode. Computers adjust the pitch of four blades to maintain the craft’s position and altitude.

Autogiros Designed by Sky Wind Power

Aside from potentially high costs, the problem with autogiros is the requirement for very long and heavy electric transmission cables and interruptions to air traffic flight paths.

Solar Power

Photovoltaics

As previously mentioned, solar energy-producing systems can take many forms, however, to most people, the most familiar form of solar energy is photovoltaics or “solar s.” At present, I believe that this form of electric power needs further development before it is ready to compete with conventional forms of large-scale power generation. I say this because the typical solar , using low-cost “thin film” technology, costs about three to four times what a conventional fossil fired or nuclear power costs. If we could develop the previously mentioned three-dimensional form with about 30 percent of the sun’s rays being captured, it could be a breakthrough. When, and if, this breakthrough occurs, solar energy might become a widespread reality—especially when used in underdeveloped countries that are located near the equator.

Power Towers

The illustration below shows how mirrors can be focused on a heat exchanger located in a tower:

Sun Tracking Solar Heliostats (mirrors) Focused on a Central Tower

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of this system is that a molten salt solution can store heat in accumulator tanks, and the stored heat can then be used to produce steam and generate electricity. As you might imagine, if this system were to use the wind turbine pedestal as the tower, we could save on the cost of both systems and offset the intermittent nature of wind energy.

Sterling Engines

This system utilizes parabolic mirrors to drive a sterling engine. Again, this system generates power only when the sun is shining and utilizes a lot of land area. At least the “power tower” concept can store energy in the form of molten salt.

Microwaves

Did you know that the National Aeronautics and Space istration (NASA) has proposed a means of transmitting solar-derived electricity from space? The average intensity of sunlight in space is eight times as strong as it is on the ground. If this sunlight could be harnessed, it could direct microwaves to a landbased converter that could produce electricity at about 90 percent efficiency. See NASA’s proposed version of this technology in the illustration below:

NASA’s Giant Solar Collector in Geosynchronous Orbit

This giant solar collector would work day and night, in any weather, to intercept sunlight and transmit its energy, to a ground based antenna for delivery as electric energy to the grid.

At first glance, you may think that the solar or microwave proposal is a great idea, and maybe it is—especially when placed in a geosynchronous earth orbit to provide continuous power to a global super-grid. However, NASA estimated the cost for the first system to be $305 billion (in 2000 dollars). Unless we can learn how to cheaply put large payloads into space, this proposal will remain on the drawing boards. It may be interesting to note that at one time during the 1970s, NASA considered catapulting minerals from the moon (one sixth of the earth’s gravity) to build and operate a space-based solar collector.

OTEC

Capturing the sun’s rays to generate electricity can take many forms. One such form is ocean thermal gradients using Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion OTEC systems like the one shown in the illustration below:

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System Courtesy of the Phoenix Foundation

The OTEC system generates electricity utilizing the temperature difference between the warm surface water temperature and the cold deep water temperature. Between 20 degrees north or south latitude, the OTEC machine will produce continuous and reliable energy 24 hours per day all year long. Although its efficiencies are not very high—ranging from 2 percent to 8 percent depending upon the temperature difference, two side benefits are to generate fresh water, from sea water, during an evaporation phase, and to bring deep water nutrients to the surface which allows sea life to thrive—thus promoting improved fishing.

Current estimates are that OTEC systems need to be 100 megawatts or more to be competitive with conventional power but have a cost and logistics problem with electricity and water transmission from a deep water site—2,000 or more feet in depth.

Tides, Waves, and Ocean Currents

A surging ocean is a virtually untapped energy source. the illustration below shows a tide farm proposed by Marine Current Turbines. The turbine array would be capable of closer spacing than conventional wind turbines and would be comprised of rotors up to 66 feet in diameter. The rotors would sap the energy from tidal currents and have the capability of surfacing for servicing.

Tide Farm Planned by Marine Current Turbines

Another method of using the ocean’s power is converting wave energy into electric power, as illustrated below. Wave energy devices, made by Ocean Power Delivery, derive electrical power by the flexing motion at their ts as waves underneath. Because the machines dive into oncoming waves, they are capable of surviving high seas that accompany intense storms.

Wave Energy Device by Ocean Power Delivery

Another idea, similar to the tidal version, could be used to tap the energy contained in the worldwide ocean currents.

Hydro and Geothermal

You may be asking why not use hydroelectric and/or geothermal to produce hydrogen fuel and/or electric power? The answer is that we are using hydroelectric and geothermal power, but the United States and world energy consumption needs are so great that the availability of hydroelectric and conventional geothermal sites fall far short of consumption requirements.

Currently, nonconventional versus conventional geothermal energy production is being given serious consideration. Conventional geothermal uses steam from reservoirs close enough to the earth’s surface to be easily tapped to produce electric power. These sites are generally beneath scenic treasures like Yellowstone National Park or on Native American reservations.

Nonconventional geothermal means extracting the heat energy that is found in dry rock about 3 miles or more underground. To do this, water would need to be pumped into the ground such that it fractures the hot rock and redistributes itself to a number of adjacent extraction wells. If this resource could be tapped, just 2 percent of the available underground heat in the United States could provide nearly two thousand times the power that the nation now consumes each year. As it is with extracting energy from the sun or the wind, the problem is cost. Current estimates range from between a competitive 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to a sky-high $1.05 per kilowatt-hour. However, perhaps the abovementioned hybrid energy park could use the wind turbine pedestals to double as geothermal drilling rigs and reduce the cost of both energy-producing systems.

Nuclear Power

Fission Nuclear

People probably do not realize that the nuclear power system, which is widely used today, was developed for the navy under the direction of iral Rickover. Because the system utilizes water to cool the reactor, it is well suited to deployment on ships. It is suited for ships since it is impossible to have a Chernobyl-like “meltdown” because the ocean can extinguish the nuclear chain reaction. Moreover, in contrast to land-based nuclear power plants, the ocean environment is also not subject to earthquake forces. Although the nuclear fuel on board a navy submarine or aircraft carrier can propel these vessels for more than twenty years before refueling, they do use uranium that is enriched to a bomb grade level. The illustration below gives some perspective regarding the enormous size of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier as it es by the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor:

The USS Ronald Reagan

Considering the modular 20- to 35-megawatt reactor systems utilized in the navy’s nuclear ships, perhaps we should consider lowering the cost of nuclear power by mass producing these systems.

Aside from the success of navy nuclear ships, many people believe that the promise of abundant and cheap nuclear power has yet to be realized. The uranium fuel used to power current fission nuclear electric power plants is not abundant, and because of fuel-processing costs, safety measures, and radioactive waste disposal, it is currently not cheap. It is, however, a way to produce pollution-free electric power.

With conventional fission nuclear power, we need to that this method of power generation suffers from long-and short-lived radioactive waste and the potential for a “meltdown.” There are ways to deal with the small quantities of long-lived radioactive waste like transporting it—in a vitrified “glass” form— into the sun. Short-lived waste can be stored in geologically stable underground sites—like salt mines.

A meltdown is an uncontrolled atomic chain reaction that can occur in a reactor if improper operating procedures are applied. And its consequences can be devastating if it is not properly extinguished and contained. The infamous partial meltdown at the Russian Chernobyl nuclear power plant was the result of improper actions on the part of the plant operators and a poor design that lacked redundant safety features. Also, because the plant did not have a domed concrete structure to contain the release of radioactive materials, it was disastrous. In fact, it was the Chernobyl incident in Russia and the “not-so-lethal” Three Mile Island incident in the United States that finally turned public opinion against continued use of nuclear power in all the world’s countries—except . However, current plant design features, computerized operating systems, redundant-safety mechanisms are intended to make the meltdown event statistically impossible. And with the inclusion of a containment and missile shield building, with self extinguishing features, the public should not be fearful.

There is also the potential of making an atomic bomb from very highly enriched fissionable nuclear fuel. Making this fuel is an extremely difficult process that probably could not be done by a terrorist group without being noticed. It would take the dedicated effort of a country—like Iran or North Korea—to make it possible. In fact, it would be easier to steal a nuclear bomb than to make a bomb from materials available at a conventional nuclear power plant.

As previously mentioned, in spite of a worldwide moratorium on nuclear power for almost the last forty years—except for —the world continues to rely on nuclear power from the plants that were built before the stoppage. As previously mentioned, 438 nuclear reactors currently supply 17 percent of the world’s electric power. And of these 438 reactors, 104 are located in the United States and supply about 20 percent of its electric power. With the above being said, except for the Fukushima plant, these nuclear power plants have had an almost flawless track record. At this point, it should be said that currently has fifty-nine fission nuclear reactors in operation at twenty sites. As of 1996, had 60,000 megawatts of installed nuclear capacity, which ed for about 80 percent of their electric power. These reactors have operated for many years without a single major problem. In addition, is able to build a nuclear plant in about five years. In contrast, because of regulatory control, the United States has taken as much as fifteen years.

As discussed in the “big picture chapter,” because uranium is a limited resource, a different type of reactor is needed to extend the uranium fuel supply. It’s called a “breeder” reactor, and it can create its own fuel by converting nonfissionable uranium (a by-product of the uranium enrichment process) into fissionable plutonium. In simplistic —during the process of making electric power, the “breeder” reactor core will contain nonfissionable uranium U-238. This U-238 material will capture neutrons and convert it into fissionable Pu-239— plutonium. The plutonium can then be used to power other reactors. Because the process “reuses” spent fuel, the long-lived nuclear waste issue is virtually eliminated. In addition, because there would be vast amounts of U-238 tailings from the uranium enrichment process, the “breeder” reactor could supply electric

power, to the world, for hundreds of years, even with the 2 percent exponential increase in the rate of power consumption. Moreover, since many people fear that plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons, current methods of processing plutonium have eliminated this concern.

Although there have been many experimental “breeder” reactors built and operated around the world, they have experienced varying degrees of success. However, one 20-megawatt “breeder” reactor (called Experimental Breeder Reactor II—EBR II) has successfully operated for over twenty-five years in the state of Idaho. Because of its reliable operation, I propose that the nuclear design features of this system be duplicated and mass-produced in the manner described above for the modular navy reactors.

To provide the reader with a greater understanding of how a fission nuclear electric power plant works, we first need to understand the nuclear chain reaction process. A fission nuclear reactor produces heat energy by splitting a fissionable uranium atom U-235 using neutron bombardment, as illustrated in the figure below.

Nuclear Fission Process Courtesy of NEI: The Nuclear Fuel Story

When U-235 atom is split, it gives off neutrons that split adjacent U-235 atoms to produce a chain reaction that must be controlled in the reactor. Fissionable U235 is required for this process. And since mined U-238 (yellow cake) contains only a small fraction, less than 1 percent of fissionable U-235, it needs to be enriched to a higher fraction—3 to 5 percent—before it can be used as a nuclear fuel. The abovementioned navy reactors enrich the uranium to more than 90 percent.

During the process of “splitting,” there is a resulting small reduction in matter (mass) that is converted into energy, according to Einstein’s famous equation E = MC². In this equation, E (energy) equals the change in mass (M) times the speed of light (C) squared. So even though the change in mass is small, the resulting energy is large. In fact, one pound of 3 to 5 percent enriched fissionable uranium can produce as much electricity as 12,000 pounds of coal or 1,200 gallons of oil.

The heat energy produced by the controlled nuclear chain reaction is used to heat water to become steam. From this point on, the power plant creates electricity like any other electric power plant. The steam expands through a turbine, which turns an electric generator—similar to the alternator that charges the battery in your automobile.

Fusion Nuclear

As we look to the future, it is possible that one day we will have low-cost fusion nuclear power. With fusion nuclear power, we may be able to generate abundant and cheap electricity and hydrogen from water. The nuclear fusion process involves fusing hydrogen atoms together to produce helium, rather than splitting uranium atoms—as previously described. It is the process that energizes the sun.

Fusion nuclear power plants will be able to produce vast amounts of energy primarily from an element contained in water called deuterium and another element derived from the world’s abundant supply of lithium—called tritium. The process is safe from a meltdown standpoint, and there are no radioactive materials produced.

Illustrated below is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). If construction is completed as scheduled, the $12 billion reactor should begin operation in southeastern in 2016.

Cutaway View of the ITER Fusion Nuclear Reactor

Although it will not add a single watt to the electric grid, the aim of the 500megawatt ITER reactor is to demonstrate large-scale fusion of the hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium, and generate ten times as much energy as it consumes. A second objective is to “breed” tritium by shooting high-speed neutrons into a surrounding blanket of lithium. A third goal is to integrate the wide range of technologies needed for a commercial fusion plant.

Other fusion reactors in progress are as follows:

• China—EAST Project—On line 2006

• India—SST-1 Project—On line 2006

• Korea—K-Star Project—On line 2008

• U. S.—NIF Project—On line 2009

• Japan—NCT Project—On line (unknown)

Based upon research over the past twenty years, scientists now claim that there is no doubt that fusion nuclear electric power generation is feasible. The question is its economic practicality and how quickly it can be moved from its experimental form to large-scale commercial reactors. Estimates currently range from twenty-five to fifty years.

With all the above being said, fission nuclear could be a partial answer to the United States electrical-energy needs, especially with a “breeder” reactor which would dramatically reduce (or eliminate) the need for mined uranium.

It is my opinion that it is realistic to assume that fusion reactors will be operating in the not too distant future. If so, it would make sense to continue spending research money on fusion reactors and to begin spending research money on fission breeder reactors so that we don’t put all of our eggs in one basket.

In the meantime, the United States should restart, and speed up, a fission nuclear program and build as many fission nuclear plants as possible, until fusion nuclear and/or “breeder” fission reactors are available. Keep in mind, that without the “breeder” reactor, the uranium fuel supply will quickly become a limited resource.

Helium-3

As mentioned earlier, helium-3 is a naturally occurring substance, deposited on the moon’s surface from solar winds. It also exists in great abundance in the upper atmospheres of all the gaseous planets. The advantage of helium-3 is that a fusion reactor can generate electricity directly using the released electrically charged proton when helium-3 atoms are fused with other helium-3 atoms. In addition, it does not require the massive containment vessel required for the abovementioned conventional deuterium−tritium fusion process.

Antimatter

Although antimatter reactors are used on the Starship Enterprise (Star Trek), and cold fusion (room temperature) was seriously debated in the 1990s, they are probably not something we can count on in the foreseeable future.

As a point of general information, a kilogram of antimatter and matter would, through their mutual annihilation, produce about half as much energy as all the gasoline burned in the United States last year. Since there are no natural sources of antimatter, it would have to be synthesized. But the most efficient antimatter producer in the world is the particle accelerator at CERN, near Geneva, and it would have to run nonstop for 100 trillion years to make one kilogram of antiprotons.

Chapter 8

About Hydrogen

Although solving the energy crisis is, in my opinion, crucial to solving many of the world’s problems, a key factor in the energy solution is the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. In an attempt to quell the fears that many people have regarding the safety aspects of hydrogen, I will begin this chapter with this aspect in mind.

Hydrogen Safety

Let’s begin by discussing the Hindenburg. So what is it about the Hindenburg that causes you so much concern? Haven’t you seen gasoline powered cars and airplanes explode? If so, why do you think the Hindenburg is so much more of a problem? Is it because the radio commentator said it was the worst thing that he has ever seen? Or is it because the Hindenburg film has been played so many times on television that everyone has etched in their mind that hydrogen must be a horrible thing?

Hindenburg Disaster Photo

The fact is the Hindenburg is an example of one of the safety aspects of hydrogen fuel. What the Hindenburg showed was that hydrogen is so light that it disperses and floats skyward very quickly—notice the above photo. Therefore, when hydrogen burns, it quickly disperses and gives off negligible-radiated heat. It is this property of hydrogen that allowed sixty-two of the ninety-seven people on board the Hindenburg to survive. Of the remaining thirty-five people, thirtythree died from falling or jumping while only two people died of burns.

Contrary to what you may have heard, the Hindenburg fire was not started by the ignition of hydrogen gas. It was started by a lightning bolt ignition of the ironoxide/aluminum-paint covering, which was highly flammable. Proof of this was demonstrated sixty years after the accident using debris from the crash. The chemistry of the paint formula resembled the fuel for a modern-day booster rocket.

You may Ben Franklin’s famous kite flying experiment, where lightning struck an electric—charge collector on a kite which transmitted electricity to the ground. In the case of the Hindenburg, it was an 800-foot-long electric-charge collector. And when the Hindenburg became grounded by dropping its landing lines, the experiment was complete, and the electrical discharge in the Hindenburg’s skin started the fire. The Hindenburg would have burned and crashed if it had been filled with helium.

As eyewitnesses have noted, the hydrogen fire started considerably after the Hindenburg’s surface skin started to burn and the fire was over in less than a minute. The diesel fuel and other heavier-than-air components of the Hindenburg continued burning for hours on the ground.

It should also be ed that 200 people in the landing assist team were below the Hindenburg holding or reaching for mooring ropes when the

Hindenburg caught fire. If the Hindenburg had carried the same amount of gasoline as the energy released by burning its 7.2 million cubic feet of hydrogen, the loss of life would have included the crew, engers, and 200-member landing team.

Perhaps, the reader is unaware that the Hindenburg had crossed the Atlantic twenty-one times prior to the accident. Its predecessor, the Graf Zeppelin, a smaller hydrogen-filled airship, logged over 1 million miles. It made 650 flights, and over 18,000 engers were delivered safely during the nine years that the Graf Zeppelin flew. It flew 144 flights nonstop to and from Berlin, Rio de Janeiro, and New York.

One final point about the Hindenburg: the fact that the Hindenburg caught fire and did not explode, a la the TWA flight 800*, should be viewed as a safety characteristic of hydrogen when compared to gasoline.

To further illustrate the fast-burning, dispersed, and low-heat radiation aspects of burning hydrogen, researchers at Miami University leaked hydrogen from a tank inside an automobile and set it aflame. Measurements inside the vehicle showed no more than 2 degrees centigrade rise in temperature. If the leak was from a carbon-based fuel like gasoline, the glowing hot-soot particles would have radiated high temperatures to the inside of the automobile and the gas tank would likely have exploded (hydrogen self ignites at 1085 F and gasoline self ignites at 934 F).

Before proceeding further with the safety aspects of hydrogen versus gasoline, please refer to table below. As shown, hydrogen is rated the safest when compared to gasoline and methane. In fact, you may be surprised to know that the National Aeronautics and Space istration (NASA) and Air Products Company (the largest producer of hydrogen in the United States) rate hydrogen safer to use than gasoline in the event of spills and accidents.

However, some critics believe that hydrogen is too unsafe because it will easily ignite (from static electricity, electric sparks, and open flames) and produce an almost invisible blue flame that will cause people to be burned. While the safety aspects of spark ignition and an “almost invisible flame” should not be minimized, it needs to be put into context.

First, there needs to be a leak, a source of oxygen and a source of ignition for a flame to develop. (Note: in the previous TWA flight 800 footnote, oxygen is currently removed from aircraft-fuel compartments to prevent ignition). Liquefied hydrogen tanks and other handling devices need to have leak-detection equipment, alarms, and shutoff valves. A fiber optic leak-detection device is shown below. This equipment is well understood and applied in current-day practice. Second, the redundancy of double-walled liquid hydrogen tanks and piping and leak resistant and redundant seals and connections, including the proper selection of materials and quality inspections, make a leak highly improbable. If a leak and subsequent flame should occur, it can be extinguished with a dry powder fire extinguisher.

With all the above being said, in my opinion, mechanics who work with hydrogen equipment need to be certified so that proper precautions are taken. In addition, it should be mentioned that liquefied hydrogen-fueled vehicles should not be stored or serviced in an enclosed garage that does not have adequate ventilation and leak-warning devices. It should, however, be pointed out that hydrogen gas will cling to the ceiling of an enclosed garage and try to escape through any available opening. Because of this inherent property of hydrogen, it will generally not cause bodily harm if inadvertently ignited.

One other idea that may be considered is to include an odor-causing agent in the hydrogen fuel to allow it to be sensed without a leak-detection device—this approach was used with the Hindenburg’s hydrogen gas. While an odor-causing agent may be acceptable for internal-combustion engines that run on hydrogen, it may not be acceptable for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This is because purity of the hydrogen fuel is important with regard to the fuel-cell performance and life expectancy. In this case, any additive in the hydrogen fuel may be detrimental. Also, because hydrogen will quickly disperse into the atmosphere, an odorcausing agent may not be practical. Providing ventilation and leak sensors, like the fiber-optic device mentioned above, may prove to be the best and only prudent approach, and s of hydrogen fuel will need to get used to it.

Finally on the safety of hydrogen fuel, it was said at the turn of the twentieth century that gasoline was too unsafe to be used in transportation vehicles. And now we are hearing the same thing about hydrogen fuel.

I do not want to minimize or underestimate the dangers involved with hydrogen fuel, but keep in mind that there are proven ways to deal with these dangers. Because, as stated earlier, hydrogen fuel is inevitable sometime in the future, future generations will learn how to live with it. It’s time we stopped trying to find problems with hydrogen fuel and start trying to find solutions.

Hydrogen Vehicles

You have all probably heard, by now, that hydrogen fuel cell cars are too expensive and don’t last very long. This is one of the arguments that’s been made by critics of the hydrogen fuel scenario. If this were true, then why have almost all the automobile manufactures, in the world, developed hydrogen fuel cell cars? Do you think it’s because they just like to work on exotic new automobile designs or have so much extra money that they just enjoy investing in something that has no hope of success? The fact is, automotive manufactures know, beyond much doubt, that hydrogen-fueled vehicles are going to be used in the future. In fact, the gasoline-powered hybrid of today could be the hydrogenpowered hybrid of tomorrow. It lays the groundwork for electric motor driven cars.

The Skateboard Chassis

Fuel cell automobiles can take advantage of having a flat “skateboard” chassis. The chassis, shown in the illustration below, uses a compact “drive-by-wire” technology for steering, braking, and throttling that permits greater freedom for designers to configure the upper body. This means that the designer does not have to contend with bulky engine compartments, an awkward center cabin hump, or conventional steering wheel. This novel approach also allows bodies to be interchangeable. For example, an owner could have new, personalized bodies “plugged in” to their used chassis at the dealership, or do it themselves—turning, say, a family sedan into a luxury car.

The Skateboard Chassis

The hydrogen fuel cell technology is based upon what is called a protonexchange membrane (PEM), as illustrated below.

Proton-Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell

As shown, hydrogen gas is forced through an anode, proton-exchange membrane, and cathode, where it mixes with air to form water. The resulting process releases electrons to produce electricity.

Aside from cost, the hydrogen fuel cell had experienced several technical problems that are currently resolved. These problems were power density, freeze point, and life expectancy. Power density has been increased from 1.8 kilowatts per liter of hydrogen to 2.5 kilowatts per liter, the freeze point has increased from—13 F to—22 F, and the durability has been increased from 3,200 hours to 5,000 hours (5,000 hours at 50 miles per hour equals 250,000 miles). To improve cost, the thickness of the platinum used to coat the electrodes has been reduced from 0.7 grams per kilowatt to 0.2 grams per kilowatt. A previous thickness reduction from 1.0 to 0.7 grams per kilowatt did not have any effect on durability or performance.

Since platinum is the most precious of precious metals (about $1,600 to $1,700 per ounce), it becomes a key factor in the future success of fuel cells vehicles. Using the previously mentioned 100 kilowatt Honda FCX as an example, we can see that the platinum alone—at .2 grams per kilowatt—would cost about $1,190 (assuming the current price of $1,690 per ounce). Since platinum can be extracted in a recycling process, the end of life value of the fuel cell makes it less of a cost and availability concern. However, I recommend that in conjunction with developing a hydrogen fuel economy, the United States government should designate platinum as a strategic metal and discontinue its current use in jewelry. Additionally, since almost 10 tons of ore must be mined to extract only 31 grams of platinum, it would make sense to invest in more economic methods of ore extraction and processing. In addition, I recommend further research into using less-expensive materials to coat the electrodes.

The Hydrogen Fuel Tank

Many consider the vehicle fuel tank to be the “Holy Grail” in the hydrogen fuel controversy. And as such, it has become one of the biggest roadblocks to moving hydrogen forward as a legitimate fuel source. In other words, it is thought that a breakthrough technology is needed.

As previously shown, the commercially available Honda FCX solves the fuel tank problem by using a high-pressure tank and providing an average—EPA rated—60 miles per equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen that results in a range of about 240 miles. Honda selected a 5,000 psi, 200 pound fuel tank that contains only 3.92 equivalent hydrogen gallons of fuel. However, a commercially available 10,000 psi tank weighing about twice as much could almost double the 240-mile range. Perhaps Honda believes that the 240-mile range is adequate and helps to keep the vehicle’s cost and weight down. It also reduces refill time to what people have become to expect with gasoline-powered vehicles—about 3 to 4 minutes. In any event, high-pressure tanks solve the fuel tank issue. Although Honda chose a tank that holds 3.92 equivalent gasoline gallons of hydrogen, the tank shown below—available from a company called Magna Steyr—will hold 4.5 equivalent gasoline gallons. If this tank were installed into the Honda FCX, it would get a range of 270 miles rather than 240.

Magna-Steyr High-Pressure Hydrogen fuel Tank

By providing hydrogen gas made from reformed natural gas, the cost and energy required for liquefying the hydrogen gas is not necessary. As a result, the hydrogen-fueled economy can begin with a low-cost fuel. In the meantime, work on liquefied hydrogen fuel tanks can proceed to provide additional benefits— like conformability to the shape of the vehicle, significantly reduced weight, increased interior room, improved mileage range, and improved vehicle acceleration. Liquefied hydrogen fuel tanks are probably required for larger and heavier vehicles like SUVs, trucks, busses, trains, tractor-trailers, and ships. And without question, they will be required for aircraft.

To begin the liquefied hydrogen fuel tank discussion, let’s discuss available technology. Please refer to the “Linde” tank illustrated below:

Linde—Liquefied Hydrogen Fuel Tank

As you can see this fuel tank is much more complex than a conventional gasoline fuel tank. For instance, there are safety devices, heat exchangers, and “boil off” systems that gasoline tanks do not need. However, this fuel tank is currently available; it works and its functions are, for the most part, transparent to the vehicle owner. To make the tanks serviceable, the water pump, heat exchangers, and solenoid valves need to be easily accessible, and the tank needs to be mounted where it can be replaced if necessary. Replacement of a noncorroding tank would, however, be very unlikely during the life of the vehicle.

The design utilizes an inner and outer tank made of one-eighth inch thick stainless steel. The space between the inner and outer tanks is filled with forty layers of super insulation with a weight to area ratio of 0.3 to 0.6 pounds per square foot. The super insulation is comprised of aluminized polymer foils separated by glass fiber spacers. Then a vacuum is applied to the space to reduce thermal convection. The structures, keeping the inner and tank in position to the outer tank, are made of glass or carbon reinforced plastics. If the vehicle is not used for more than three days, the heat entry leads to a “boil off” rate of 1 percent to 3 percent per day.

During the filling procedure, both the cryogenic filling valve (7) and the cryogenic return valve (8) is opened. Liquefied hydrogen flows from the filling station via a Johnson-Cox coupling (3) and the filling valve into the inner vessel (1). In order to keep the inner tank pressure low, evaporated gaseous hydrogen leaves the inner tank via the cryogenic return valve and flows back to the filling station. After finishing the filling procedure, both cryogenic valves will be closed. For hydrogen extraction, the cryogenic-filling valve remains closed while the cryogenic return valve is open. Gaseous hydrogen leaves the inner tank to the cooling water heat exchanger (5). Hydrogen heats up above ambient temperature and flows further into the pressure regulation valve (9). If the inlet pressure is above the defined set pressure of the pressure regulator, the partial flow inlet will be closed and no hydrogen can through the tank heater (4). Therefore, no additional heat will be led to the inner tank heater and the pressure will decrease. During standby, both cryogenic valves are closed. During long-

term parking the hydrogen pressure in the inner tank rises until the “boil off” valve (11) will limit the “boil off” pressure. Overpressure in the inner tank must not open the cryogenic valves. In case of a fault the “boil off,” pressure in the inner tank rises until the safety relief valve (12) opens. The last device that protects the tank is the rupture disc (16), which is needed in case of a default of the safety relief valve.

The problems with the currently available Linde tank are 1) excessive weight— 22 pounds of liquefied hydrogen to 330 pounds of tank weight, 2) awkward shape, and 3) “boil off.” However, the above mentioned company—Magna Steyr —is currently addressing these problems, and here is what they are currently developing:

Magna-Steyr Low-Pressure Liquefied Hydrogen fuel Tank

Notice a significant reduction in weight (47 kilograms versus about 220 kilograms for an equivalent capacity high pressure—10,000 psi tank) and hydrogen loss due to “boil off”—an average of about one percent per day—after three days of dormancy. For a person who drives 15,000 miles per year in a hydrogen-fueled vehicle that gets 30 miles per equivalent gallon and fills up once every two weeks, the boil off would amount to 11 percent—or about 1.1 kilograms of hydrogen. At $4 per kilogram (as previously mentioned one kilogram is equal in energy content to 1 gallon of gasoline), the yearly loss in fuel would be about $115. However, the yearly cost of fuel would be about $2,000, and at $4 per kilogram, the $115 represents only about 6 percent.

While boil off would not be a significant economic problem for most vehicle owners, it would still be of some concern. Because of this concern, I believe that liquefied hydrogen fuel tanks will not be widely accepted until a means of recovering and using the escaping fuel is incorporated into the fuel tank system. Since a recovery system would not be needed for high-usage vehicles like taxis and delivery trucks, it may eventually be sold as an option. When the option is available, the added cost may cause some people to opt out of having it. On the other hand, I when power steering and brakes were options—and now they are standard.

Boil off results from a pressure build up as heat penetrates the insulation. To relieve this pressure build up, a vent valve is incorporated into the tank as described above. Although I haven’t heard of anything being done to capture the boil off, it isn’t an insurmountable problem. All that is really needed is a small compressor and storage tank. Obviously, a pressure tank that is equal in volume to the primary tank would be impractical. So based upon a typical two-week boil off about 1.1 kilograms, the storage tank might limit boil off capture to this small amount.

Other methods to limit boil off might include active secondary cooling, delayed dormancy, and increased tank pressure capability. Although I believe that these

methods will eventually be discarded, a form of auxiliary cooling might have some merit.

Hydrogen Critics

I can’t understand why there are so many critics who constantly disparage the use of hydrogen fuel. After all, when we do run out of fossil fuels what is there? Perhaps, someday we will have modular fusion nuclear power to fuel our automobiles, but don’t count on that happening any time within the next two or three hundred years. As far as the all electric battery-powered vehicles are concerned, I have already proven, in the second chapter of this book, the fallacy of this approach.

So what are the critics saying? As you already know, I have resolved the safety, liquefied hydrogen boil off, and the automotive fuel tank issues; so what else?

Criticism 1

It would take four liquefied hydrogen trucks to deliver the same amount of hydrogen fuel energy to gas stations as one gasoline delivery truck (due to the nature of liquefied hydrogen, it occupies about four times as much volume as an equivalent volume of gasoline).

Comments

• Based upon this criticism, it means that more fuel is consumed in making

deliveries and more trucks would be needed—a problem especially in trafficcongested areas. This is a paradigm that suggests that trucks deliver liquefied hydrogen fuel to gas stations. The simplest way to deliver liquefied hydrogen to gas stations is to deliver natural gas, or electricity, to the gas station and let them make their own fuel, thereby eliminating truck delivery.

• Although some gas stations may make a small amount of hydrogen fuel—as stated in the third chapter of this book—I believe that we will still rely on truck delivery from central processing plants. But the trucks could be double tractortrailers, and the fuel tanks could be “dropped off” at the gas station (because of their lighter weight compared to equivalent tanks filled with gasoline). The empty tanks would then be transported back to a nearby fuel dispensing station for refilling (sort of like propane gas is dispensed for backyard barbecue grills).

Criticism 2

There is another critic who stated that a 747 aircraft would have to be three times as big to accommodate pressurized hydrogen fuel tanks.

Comments

• First of all, aircraft will use liquefied hydrogen fuel which is more compact and much lighter in weight in its container than pressurized hydrogen gas in its container. Second, future aircraft will probably need to be redesigned for hydrogen fuel—probably with the fuel tank on top of the aircraft.

• There is one proposal that places the liquefied hydrogen fuel tank in the body (fuselage) of an aircraft between the cockpit and the enger compartment.

Such a placement would make it impossible for a terrorist to gain access to the cockpit.

• Liquefied hydrogen fuel is much more efficient for jet-aircraft and is 70 percent lighter in weight (specialized large size lightweight aluminum or titanium−hydrogen fuel tanks would probably provide a weight advantage of about 30 to 40 percent). Because of these considerations, aircraft designers conducted a study that showed that the fuel flight efficiency could roughly double; thereby require an approximately two times larger hydrogen fuel tank than its comparable jet-fuel tank. Their studies also showed improved safety characteristics, smaller wing areas, shorter runways, quieter operation, and, of course, less pollution.

Criticism 3

It has been stated that hydrogen is made from water, and thus the United States freshwater consumption rate would go up 10 percent in an all hydrogen fuel economy.

Comment

• This criticism is not true because it currently takes 18 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of gasoline from crude oil; whereas, if hydrogen is derived from water, it takes about 2.5 gallons of water to make an equivalent gallon of hydrogen. Therefore the United States freshwater consumption rate will go down rather than up . And keep in mind that when hydrogen is burned, its by-product is water that returns to the atmosphere. This is an almost perfect cycle when you consider that it combines with the oxygen that was released into the atmosphere when the hydrogen was produced.

Criticism 4

Some other critics claim that we don’t have enough experience using hydrogen to fuel automobiles and trucks, and therefore we need to proceed slowly and cautiously.

Comments

• What is generally not known is that engineers in and England had been using hydrogen as an automotive fuel since the early 1900s. By the year 1930, literally thousands of hydrogen-fueled vehicles were in operation in the two countries. At that time, a German engineer named Rudolf Erren developed a fuel injection system that eliminated the carburetor which was poorly suited to inject a gaseous fuel. Since the remaining parts of the internal combustion engine were unchanged, a conversion cost was relatively small and the vehicle was able to operate on either hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels with a flip of a switch. All major engines at that time were modified, including those manufactured by MAN, Daimler-Benz, and Beardmore.

• In the 1980s, a self-service liquid hydrogen pump was used by Los Alamos National Laboratory investigators to refuel a modified 1979 Buick. After using the system for over a year, the investigators concluded that “liquid hydrogen storage and refueling of a vehicle can be accomplished over an extended period of time without any major difficulty.”

Criticism 5

Researchers at Caltech have claimed that release of large quantities of hydrogen into the atmosphere (leakage of 20 percent of the world hydrogen fuel economy usage) could cause a slowing of the stratospheric ozone levels as chlorofluorocarbon emissions are reduced.

Comments

• First of all, the release of hydrogen into the atmosphere would be mostly a result of liquefied hydrogen “boil off.” “Boil off,” as previously discussed, can and should be controlled for economic reasons. Therefore, 20 percent leakage is an unrealistic assumption.

• Second, not to dispute the Caltech researchers, but there are many unanswered questions related to their study. Such as the fact that molecular hydrogen may never reach the stratosphere because the earth absorbs molecular hydrogen like a sponge.

Criticism 6

Because the US car fleet takes roughly 14 years to turn over, little can be done to change car technology in the short term.

Comments

• My proposed plan will take much longer than 14 years. It is not a short-term plan.

• To get the ball rolling, even for a slow and steady hydrogen plan, there will need to be incentives like dual fuel tank vehicles and 60 miles per gallon hydrogen fuel cell cars.

Criticism 7

It has been postulated that the hydrogen transition would require a huge federal cash outlay (say $100-$300 billion) for a crash program along the lines of the Apollo Moon Program.

Comment

• This postulation assumes that government would put up most of the money, when in fact, there is a huge economic incentive for private enterprise to put up most of the money. In my opinion, this should be done using a hydrogen consortium comprised of Social Security investors. 50 million investors putting up $3,000 of their own money would be $150 billion.

Chapter 9

About Water

My summer home is in Minnesota, where it’s claimed that there are ten thousand lakes plus Lake Superior. From my observation, there are many more lakes and large ponds than the claim. For the last few years, my wife and I have vacationed with our daughter’s family on the north shore of Lake Superior. Believe me if you have never been there, the beauty is absolutely magnificent and breathtaking. After growing up near the Atlantic Ocean, I can tell you that Lake Superior looks like an ocean. But I will say that it definitely has a different feeling to it, like no salt air.

During one summer vacation, we took the grandkids on a Lake Superior chartered fishing trip to catch lake trout and salmon. To catch these fish, the fishing boat needed to troll at a pretty fast speed. However, since the fish were swimming near the bottom of the lake, special outriggers with heavy weights were required to bring our lines down to where the fish were. To my surprise, the lake was over 200 feet deep at less than a quarter mile from shore. It was at this point that I recalled my brother-in-law telling me of his concern about a worldwide water shortage. But with all of this fresh water, how could that be? As an engineer who believes that technology can overcome almost any physical obstacle, I thought that there must be a way to make use of this vast amount of fresh water without emptying it into the ocean by way of Niagara Falls and the St. Lawrence Seaway. My thinking is that if fresh water ever became enough of a crisis, then my fellow engineers could solve the problem.

When I studied my brother-in-law’s water shortage concern, I found that he was right. A shortage of fresh water could become a crisis in many parts of the world. As the population of humans and animals increase, the need for more fresh water is becoming quite evident. The problem, of course, is not that there isn’t enough fresh water, but rather that there is not enough of it in the right places. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), there are 2,548,339 cubic miles of fresh water located in rivers, lakes, and ground water throughout the Earth— almost all of it being in ground water aquifers. In addition, there is another 3,088,000 cubic miles of saline groundwater.

The problem with our naturally occurring hydrologic cycle is that it doesn’t distribute water evenly throughout the globe. Some areas of the globe have an abundance of water, like Lake Superior, while other areas don’t. One article I read claimed that six countries have 50 percent of the Earth’s fresh water. These countries were identified as Brazil, Russia, Canada, Indonesia, China, and Columbia. Unfortunately, one-third of the world’s population is located in what might be called “water-stressed” countries.

Although diverting fresh water by using dams is a prevalent method of getting water to where it is needed, it does create some problems. Over 60 percent of the world’s rivers have been dammed, with over 47,000 dams being built in just the last fifty years. The problems resulting from this damming process include downstream erosion due to sediment build up at the dam site; and in many cases, land near the dam site becomes flooded and fish migration routes become blocked.

While the lack of fresh water in some regions of the globe may sound ominous, let’s look at some additional facts. First of all, worldwide human water consumption varies greatly. For example in Ethiopia, the average person consumes only about 3 gallons of water per day. In Great Britain, the water consumption is about 30 gallons per day, while in the United States, it is between 70 and 150 gallons per day. In other words, we in the United States could continue our existence on much less water if we had to do it. Additionally in California, where a water shortage is claimed, the pricing of water has been so low that the first 885 gallons costs about $2.80. After that, the price increases to $3.40. Since the average Northern California family of three consumes about 350 gallons of water per day, their bill is only about $35 per month. Perhaps if they had to pay $95 per month, they would think more about conserving water and the California water shortage problem would go away. In any event maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to charge more for fresh water because it isn’t like charging more for gasoline. A higher price for gasoline and diesel fuel has a detrimental effect on the economy because for many people and businesses— cutting back is not an option, whereas raising the price of water just causes most

people to use it more wisely. Perhaps, if water were to cost more, private enterprise and the free market might come up with novel new ways of extracting water from water rich regions and delivering it to water poor regions.

The idea that we are running out of water is most certainly a myth when you consider desalinization. Current methods of desalination can produce tens of millions of gallons of water per day for about $0.0015 per gallon (depending on the cost of energy). For a person using 150 gallons per day, the cost would be $0.23 per day or less than $7.00 per month. Since the water needs to be transported to the location where it is used, the cost will, of course, go up, and investments and profits need to be added. In one case, a desalination plant in Jabail Saudi Arabia transports water via a 200-mile pipeline to the city of Riyadh. Of course, the problem with desalinization is the availability and cost of power needed to achieve it.

When water transportation costs become prohibitive, especially to highly elevated inland regions, like Mexico City, it becomes cheaper to transport water from a fresh water source and eliminate the capital cost and energy consumption associated with desalination. The problem lies with poor inland locations that can’t afford to import water. So it isn’t that there is a lack of water, it’s that poor people can’t afford it. It’s also not a problem of the energy required for desalination since as I have discussed earlier, this problem can be solved with nuclear power or OTEC systems. If you my previous discussion about the ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) system, a by-product of this system is fresh water. In fact, if a 100-megawatt OTEC system were operating today in tropical waters, it would economically generate almost 10 million gallons of fresh water per day, while at the same time economically and reliably generating solar powered electrical energy.

To emphasize my point about there being enough fresh water, I will do some simple arithmetic. According to the American Water Works Association, the average person in the United States consumes about 70 gallons of water per day —65 percent of which is attributable to toilets, clothes washing, and showers. If

we assume a world population of 20 billion people that consume fresh water at the United States rate, it would take 5,490 years to consume it all if it was not being replenished by the hydrologic cycle. Of course, I have not included fresh water consumption by crops and livestock, but even if we increase water consumption tenfold, there isn’t a problem for the foreseeable future if we can solve the water redistribution issue.

When you consider the hydrologic cycle, the sun causes water to evaporate and clouds to form. Wind causes the clouds to migrate over land, and rain and snow replenishes the fresh water supply. This water is either consumed or it helps to replenish ground water aquifers. What is left over is sent back to the ocean via rivers and streams. How amazing is that? The Earth neither gains nor loses water. Water that we are using today is the same water that was used by our ancient ancestors.

The above discussion is intended to serve as a backdrop for what I am about to propose. As I have mentioned, water is not always located in places where we need it, or it contains salt. Considering population growth and poor people around the world dying from starvation and a lack of water, it bothers me that engineering solutions haven’t been proposed that solve this problem while earning a profit at the same time. Although the United States has donated money to help poor countries, this solution hasn’t done much to improve the lives of the poor. Perhaps, it’s time that we start donating things that permanently solve the problem.

To me, the answer is not in sending money to poor countries without an ing for where and how it is spent. In fact, if we are going to spend taxpayer’s dollars to help these countries, why not do it in a way that insures that the poor people benefit. However, before I give my solutions, let’s review a few more facts:

1. The world’s population is expected to grow from about 7.0 billion people now,

to about 9.2 billion by the year 2050.

2. About 35 percent of the current world’s population lives without electricity (2.28 billion people).

3. About 70 percent of the current world’s population does not use gasoline, diesel, or aviation fuels for transportation (4.55 billion people).

4. Half of the world’s current population lives on less than the equivalent of two US dollars per day.

5. Farmers are abandoning about 27 thousand square miles of farmland each year because the soils have become degraded and water is becoming scarce.

6. The world’s fresh ground water is being consumed about ten times faster than it is being replenished.

These are problems that need to be addressed, but in order to address them, we need to take one step at a time. We are not going to swallow the elephant in one bite. Moreover, one ground rule for solving these problems should be to let the free markets do for the world’s poor what it has done to help the United States. In other words, it is not a matter of having the rich give money to the poor in a zero sum game where everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie. In the famous words of President Reagan, “You don’t enrich the impoverished by impoverishing the rich.”

As an engineer, I have come to believe that technology and the free market can and will solve the poverty issue. And in my opinion, when the poverty issue is solved, the population growth issue will become much less of a concern because industrialized societies chose to have fewer children. But before we can solve the poverty issue, we need to provide enough water and energy.

My proposal for redistribution of the world’s fresh water supply begins with China’s Grand Canal. China currently has a 1,103-mile-long Grand Canal that was begun in 486 BC and is still being upgraded. Besides providing a means of delivering grain and other products by barge, it provides the water-poor north with water from the water-rich south. Current plans are for this artificial river to dispense water at the rate of 14,000 cubic feet per second using a giant pumping station—built in 1980—to help with the uphill portion of the route.

I refer to China’s Grand Canal because it is the basis upon which other canals can be constructed to eliminate water shortages around the world. If we can pump 14,000 cubic feet per second of water uphill, it may be possible to take lowland water to a higher elevation and begin a new river of fresh water that would have otherwise emptied into the ocean. However, before describing how and why worldwide grand canals are needed, it would make sense to stop at this point and describe the Ogallala Aquifer, located in the High Plains region of the United States. The Ogallala is one of many very large aquifers around the world that provide water to sustain the world’s growing population.

The Ogallala ground water aquifer is located under portions of eight Midwest states and is one of the world’s largest underground reservoirs. It lies under 174 thousand square miles of land, located to the east of the Rocky Mountains, which is often called the “breadbasket of the United States.” However, this was not always the case. Have you ever heard about the semiarid High Plains’ crop failures in the 1930s, due to cycles of draught, culminating in the disastrous “dust bowl”? This event preceded the development of electric pumps to extract water from the aquifer.

The water depth of the Ogallala ranges between 100 to 400 feet and is between 3 to 525 feet below the High Plains surface and is comprised of about 970 trillion gallons of water. Although this is certainly a lot of water, farming in this area is consuming the Ogallala’s water at ten times the rate of replenishment. This is due to evaporation by the High Plains arid atmosphere, the impermeability of the top layer of soil (called caliche), and small pore spaces in the underground natural resupply network. This problem is not unique to the Ogallala; it generally exists for other aquifers, throughout the world. Although current estimates are that the Ogallala is being depleted by as much as 5.7 trillion gallons per year, there would seem to be enough water left for 170 more years. However, the depletion is not uniform, and some farming regions are going to run out in as few as twenty-five years if nothing is done to reverse the situation.

Another much smaller aquifer exists under much of the Mojave and Sonora Deserts, but steps are currently being taken to replenish its depleted water via a canal connected to the Colorado River. The canal also supplies water to residents of a place called the Coachella Valley. The 1,000-square-mile Coachella Valley is located mostly in Riverside County in Southern California and boarders on Imperial and San Diego Counties. Although this part of the country receives only about 3 inches of rain per year, it utilizes water from the canal. This area is home to more than 250 thousand residents and grows high-value crops on 110 square miles of land. These crops have a gross annual value of $575 million, or about $8 thousand per acre, which is among the highest crop dollar returns per acre in the world. The 122-mile-long canal, supplied by the Colorado River, provides 1,450 billion gallons of water per year for crops, replenishment of aquifer water, and for general use by the population. Water sales to the population are about 40.3 billion gallons per year, but 6.5 billion gallons of wastewater is reclaimed for watering crops, lawns, and golf courses. To conserve water usage for crops, drip watering and micro irrigation is extensively employed with focused applications of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides being distributed using these systems. My estimate is that of the 1,450 billion gallons of Colorado River water, only about 10 billion gallons is needed to grow crops in the 110-square-mile area. 10 billion gallons of water would provide the equivalent of about one foot of rainwater in one year, but because the water is only needed during the growing seasons, this amount is concentrated to grow crops at that time. I consider the Coachella Valley as a model for future water management and I will refer to it as we proceed.

I mention the Ogallala Aquifer and the Coachella Valley because in the plan that I will propose, we can build a grand canal that will not only replenish and sustain the Ogallala but can bring additional water to the Mojave and Sonora Deserts to allow more Coachella Valleys to be developed. If my plan proves to be economically viable, it can be duplicated in other parts of the world and thus eliminate future water and food shortages. Because the project will be massive, and very expensive, the trick will be to provide economic incentives and this is where hydrogen comes into the equation.

Chapter 10

About Zeppelins

Some friends of my wife and I had a small private airplane in which they took frequent weekend trips. We were invited to travel with them on several occasions and found the experience quite enjoyable. We saw some very interesting views that could only be seen by flying at a low altitude. We saw luxurious housing communities, interesting golf courses, farmlands and forested areas, the layout of towns and cities, the intricacies of lakes and rivers that cannot be ascertained while driving a car, and we had the unique feeling of flying like a bird. What if we could all travel around the country in this manner for the price of a bus ticket? What if our flight had the accommodations, amenities, and spaciousness of a luxury cruise ship? What if we could board the craft with our car and be dropped off to explore areas of interest. How ing a large-scale zeppelin?

You probably know about the Goodyear and Met Life blimps because of the aerial shots that they provide during golf or football events. The views in many cases are spectacular. Many times before a sporting event these blimps survey the surrounding area to show magnificent views of cities and towns from a low flying altitude. Except for takeoffs and landings of high-flying jet aircraft, the public is generally deprived of experiencing the beauty and intricacies of our vast landscapes from sea to shining sea.

In the days of low flying zeppelins, people were treated to wondrous views while traveling in a lifestyle generally provided by luxury cruise ships. For many people, especially retirees getting from one place to another doesn’t need to be fast. In fact, frequent stops or hovering at scenic wonders could provide a bonus. If we could make zeppelins at a low cost, they could not only provide this mode of travel but also serve some other unique purposes.

In my humble opinion, a key component to how we can solve the hydrogen infrastructure problem —and other problems facing the world today—is the use of zeppelins. The zeppelin that I envision has a cargo lift capability of 1,000 thousand pounds at sea level, 700 thousand pounds at an altitude of 12 thousand feet (high enough to cross most mountain ranges), and 140 thousand pounds at

25 thousand feet (high enough to travel in the Jet-stream). It uses liquefied hydrogen fuel to power fuel cells which drive motors that turn propellers that control the zeppelin’s position and flight. My estimates are that this proposed unmanned, remote-controlled zeppelin will travel at speeds of more than 80 miles per hour and can stay aloft for a week before needing to refuel. When traveling in the Jet-stream, speeds of almost 200 miles per hour may be possible.

Because of cost and availability, the lighter than air gas needed to keep zeppelins aloft is hydrogen rather than helium. To deal with the controversial nature of hydrogen’s flammability, the zeppelin’s vertical takeoff, travel routes, and landings could be in unpopulated areas and their usage could be for cargo only— no engers, pilots, or crew. On the other hand, some zeppelins could use helium for enger travel.

To achieve the abovementioned attributes, my calculations show that the proposed zeppelin should be a torus that is about 500 feet in diameter and 200 feet tall—as illustrated below:

Mass produced - unmanned - Cargo Carrying Zeppelin

To keep the cost of manufacture low, I propose a factory that mass-produces as many as three hundred zeppelins per year. Although a few service and maintenance silos will be needed, there is no need for each zeppelin to have a storage enclosure during severe weather. When severe weather does occur, the zeppelin can be anchored on the ground and does not need to be facing the wind. It can also fly above the weather by dropping off its cargo if necessary.

My calculations show that when mass-produced, the cost per zeppelin should be about $2.5 million.

Here is my cost breakdown:

1. Overhead crane—aluminum

$15,000

2. Pulleys—titanium

$45,000

3. Torus frame—aluminum

$400,000

4. Cables—carbon fiber

$100,000

5. Pick-up device

$100,000

6. Torus skin/bladder—Kevlar/neoprene $130,000 7. Motorized propellers

$600,000

8. Hydrogen

$120,000

9. Factory amortization

$400,000

10. Labor/overhead—10 per day

$400,000

Total

$2,310,000

The first six items shown in the above cost estimate are for materials based upon weight and large quantity pricing—note the high cost of carbon fiber cables. The three motorized propellers are estimated to be about $200,000 each, and the hydrogen cost is based upon a market price of about $4 per thousand cubic feet. With regard to labor, overhead, and amortized factory costs, I have assumed that the factory and manufacturing equipment cost to be about $1 billion, with about one thousand workers required to manufacture three hundred zeppelins per year. When the factory is amortized over a ten-year time frame, the yearly costs will be about $1.0 billion per year or $400,000 per zeppelin. If each worker earns the equivalent of $100,000 per year, the labor cost would also be about $400,000 per zeppelin—so let’s add another $190,000 per zeppelin for heating, electricity, and other expenses for a total cost of about $2.5 million.

A proposed factory is illustrated below:

Zeppelin Factory - Up to 300 Zeppelins per Year

Although all parts of the factory are not shown, the idea is that with enough stations along the assembly line, one or more zeppelins can be manufactured each day. As a result, the factory expenses per zeppelin will be minimized, as shown in the above cost estimate.

At this point, you are probably asking why we need so many zeppelins. After all in twenty years, we will have produced about six thousand of them. At this point, I’m not going to explain all the reasons why, but I will tell you that the main purpose of these zeppelins is for use instead of hydrogen gas pipelines— and there will be a lot of hydrogen that will need to be transported.

Before going into detail about why the mass-produced low-cost zeppelin is potentially a “game changer,” I think it would be prudent to provide some background information that will put the updated zeppelin concept into perspective.

As you might have surmised, I find blimps and zeppelins to be very intriguing. The word blimp generally means a “lighter than air” balloon-like structure made of a leak-proof fabric, whereas zeppelins, like the Hindenburg, have a ridged structure with fabric on the outside and helium or hydrogen-filled bladders inside. A compromise between the two would have a semi-ridged frame as part of the structure.

The Goodyear and Met Life blimps do not have a ridged frame and maintain their shape and buoyancy by inflating and deflating airbags as the helium gas expands and contracts with altitude and temperature. At ground level, the airbags

are filled. When in the air, the helium expands, because the air is lighter at higher altitudes, the air bags are deflated. For these blimps, using a nonridged frame makes a lot of sense because of their relatively small size, and marginal lift capability. However, as the size gets bigger, the lift capability is dramatically increased. This happens because a doubling in size results in an eightfold increase in the volume of helium or hydrogen gas, and, an eightfold increase in volume is almost an eightfold increase in lifting capability. Therefore, a ridged frame can be used for larger sizes without much loss in the amount of cargo weight that it can lift.

Let’s compare the Goodyear GZ-19 blimp to the Hindenburg. The GZ-19 is 192 feet long, 59.5 feet high and 50 feet wide. The Hindenburg was 804 feet long and 135 feet in diameter. If you calculate the volume of the GZ-19, it is about 300 thousand cubic feet, while the volume of the Hindenburg is over 7 million cubic feet—an increase of over twenty-three times that of the GZ-19—enough so that a ridged frame is practical. And by having a ridged frame, it could lift a substantial amount of weight without damaging the balloon material. In the case of the Hindenburg, it was capable of lifting about 247 thousand pounds in addition to its own weight.

So in case you were wondering how big my proposed zeppelin is, I will tell you that it is much bigger than the Hindenburg! Utilizing the Hindenburg’s net lift capability, as a basis for calculating the proposed zeppelin’s net lift capability, I estimate about 1 million pounds at sea level. My research shows that this is 600 thousand pounds more lift capability than the largest publically known zeppelin that I could find on the internet. Yet the proposed larger zeppelin is 62 percent shorter than the Hindenburg but only 41 percent larger in diameter. As you can see, this size increase equates to more than four times the lifting capability of the Hindenburg.

Let’s pause here for a moment and make some things clear about why large zeppelins should be reconsidered. First of all, there are new technologies that were not available when the zeppelins were discarded. The second reason is that

we could use a low-cost alternative to current methods of transporting large objects.

So what are the new technologies? Well, how about global positioning systems and computer technology that permits unmanned operation, thus permitting the possible use of low-cost hydrogen, rather than high cost and scarce helium, as the lighter-than air gas. The next technology is new materials such as Kevlar, titanium, carbon composites, and aluminum alloys. Finally, we can now use computerized design analysis which is capable of evaluating wind forces and structures in a way that was not dreamed about in the days of the Hindenburg. Then, while mass production was available when zeppelins were discarded, there was no need to mass-produce them in the numbers required for accomplishing the objectives that I will describe later. Additionally, robotic assembly techniques were not in use at that time. And because of my proposed torus shape, it would not be necessary to provide each zeppelin with expensive ground based enclosures. When and if the zeppelins are not in use, a low-cost strapping system could serve to brace the zeppelin during high wind conditions on the ground. In fact, because of the torus shape, it would not need to rotate to face toward the oncoming wind.

Besides transporting hydrogen, let’s list a few things that might allow these mammoth low-cost zeppelins to stand on their own merits. How about carrying cargo that would normally be transported by train or tractor-trailer? Have you ever wondered why the pre-manufactured house has never caught on? It is probably because the majority of the cost is in transportation and site preparation (e.g. basements, streets, sewer lines, electrical lines, water lines, and landscaping). Well, what if the basements, sewer lines etc. were premanufactured so that we could deliver the house with basement, landscaped front and backyards, paved street, and utility hookups in one move!

What else? How about having the capability of dumping four Olympic-sized swimming pools of water on a forest fire; or, carrying the load equivalent of twenty super large mining dump trucks at a fraction of the cost.

Our zeppelins could also serve in the area of disaster relief. For instance, we could help evacuate cities like New Orleans after a hurricane and flood. How about providing water to drought-stricken areas or food and housing relief in case of an emergency? Then, how about delivering pre-manufacturing concrete aqueducts to help restore the world’s cropland?

Surly the military could use a low-cost method of transporting troops and equipment. And by keeping a large number of zeppelins continuously operating at high altitude, supplemented by hydrogen-filled Kevlar weather balloons (or double stacking), we could replace some very expensive communications and surveillance satellites. Then, how ing the zeppelin to help with worldwide recycling of our nonrenewable resources by continuously traveling in one direction around the globe with the aid of the Jet-stream wind?

Finally, with regard to their primary use, let’s use these behemoths for transporting hydrogen fuel to locations within the United States and around the world. With this idea alone, it becomes obvious that large numbers of massproduced zeppelins would be required. Consider this, transporting liquefied hydrogen via my proposed large-scale zeppelins is by far the least expensive long-distance transportation method. To transport 100 percent of all transportation fuel currently used by the United States, we will need about seven thousand zeppelins. To transport hydrogen fuel for the entire world in the year 2050, we will need about twenty thousand zeppelins.

If we were to construct energy parks that are a long distance away from population centers, the zeppelin solves the transportation issue. Moreover, the idea of wind and solar produced electric energy becomes more viable if hydrogen is produced when the wind blows and the sun shines and is not dependent upon varying electricity demands that don’t coincide with nature. Do you see where this is going? As a result of developing a hydrogen infrastructure, I envision spin-off technologies—like the zeppelin—that can solve some global problems that I will discuss later.

As a final note about zeppelins, I want to clear up the subject of zeppelin reliability. Besides the Hindenburg disaster, I need to mention two other notable zeppelin disasters. They are the United States Navy’s Akron and Macon. They were almost as large as the Hindenburg and had the additional advantage of being filled with helium rather than hydrogen. Briefly, these zeppelins were destroyed while operating in severe weather that damaged their structures and caused their helium-filled bladders to deflate.

Well, that was then, and this is now. Back then, we didn’t have the engineering analysis tools, materials, and test equipment that are available today. So without going into a lot of technical detail, suffice it to say that if we can design a highly reliable jumbo jet aircraft, we can design a reliable zeppelin—even one that will survive on the ground, or fly in severe weather. After all, the Hindenburg and its predecessor, the Graf Zeppelin, logged over 1 million miles during their time in service. And keep in mind that before we were able to go to the moon, we had a number of launchpad disasters before we figured out how to do it.

Before leaving this subject, I feel certain that there are some readers who are rolling their eyes and saying—yeah sure. This thing is so big that it would be impossible to build or mass-produce—especially as many as three hundred zeppelins per year. Well, history is filled with people who said it couldn’t be done. If we had listened to these people, we wouldn’t have gone to the moon, built jumbo jet airliners, or the Golden Gate Bridge. To alleviate this concern, let me put some things into perspective by mentioning some related facts as follows:

1. The Golden Gate Bridge’s towers are 770 feet tall, and the middle span is 4,200 feet long.

2. The NASA space shuttle crawler is 131 feet long x 113 feet wide and is

capable of transporting 12 million pounds.

3. The University of Phoenix Stadium has a 403 feet long x 234 feet wide 18.9 million pound moveable field.

4. The University of Phoenix Stadium has a retractable 1/16 inch thick Tefloncoated fiberglass roof that is ed by two 700 foot long x 87 foot—at its mid-point—high trusses. The top of the roof is 206 feet above grade level and each roof weighs 1.1 million pounds.

5. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is 1,092 feet long x 34 feet wide and weighs 190 million pounds when loaded.

6. The United States learned how to mass-produce 2,751 Liberty Ships during WW II, at a cost of under $2 million each (about $20 million in today’s dollars). These ships were 441 feet long and 56 feet wide. Each ship was comprised of 250,000 parts that were prefabricated throughout the country. The average ship took seventy days to complete with the last ship—the SS Robert E. Perry—being built in four-and-one-half days.

To put the above facts into further perspective, let’s assume that the proposed zeppelin factory had a price tag of $10 billion rather than my estimated $1 billion. That’s a lot of money—and perhaps many times higher than it should be, but when taken in the context of helping to replace 7.67 billion barrels of oil per year, at $100 per barrel ($767 billion per year), with hydrogen fuel, it doesn’t take much thought to see the payback potential.

Finally, let’s begin by building smaller zeppelins that can be used to construct

remotely located renewable energy parks, thus minimizing the cost of roadways and aiding in the construction process. If we build a zeppelin that is 200 feet in diameter and 75 feet tall, it could lift almost fifty thousand pounds at ground level—the equivalent of lifting five elephants weighing five tons each.

Chapter 11

Renewable Energy Solutions

At this point, you’re probably thinking that I believe that wind and solar power does not make much sense. Well, in many ways, it doesn’t make sense, but in my opinion, that’s because I can’t find anyone who is thinking “out of the box.” “We’re making lots of money doing what we have been doing—thank you very much.” The problem is that much of their profit comes from government subsidies and mandates. Besides, developing huge hydrogen-producing energy parks isn’t even on the radar screen.

While working as an engineering manager for the Thermo King Corporation—a transport refrigeration company—I have seen how out-of-the-box thinking has kept Thermo King the world’s number one manufacturer of transport refrigeration equipment. Many of Thermo King’s engineers were very adept at creating innovative ideas, and upper management was always willing to take some calculated risks to stay ahead of the competition.

One instance of out-of-the-box thinking resulted from a competitor in Europe who found a way of taking some of Thermo King’s business. The competitor mounted a large alternator under the truck engine to power his refrigeration equipment, while Thermo King used a diesel engine to power its refrigeration equipment. Since the diesel engine made more noise than the truck mounted alternator, the competitor influenced local governments to noise ordinances that precluded using Thermo King’s equipment. To make a long story short, Thermo King decided to regain this business by developing an out-of-the-box idea that would not only meet the noise ordinances but also provide a much better product. The idea was to use an alternator and inverter that could electronically convert variable electric power from the varying speed truck engine and make it constant. As a result, the refrigeration temperature could be precisely controlled.

There is much more to the inverter story than what I have just described, and I’m not trying to blow my own horn by telling you this. But I do want to make a point based upon my own working experience. When I recommended the new

inverter technology, Thermo King’s management allowed me, and my engineering team, to begin a research program to develop the technology to the point of building prototypes and conducting field tests. Unfortunately, our alternator/inverter manufacturer charged so much for the product that we couldn’t sell a large number of systems. Potential customers told us that they really wanted our new product, but because our competitor had a lower price, they continued to buy the competitor’s unit.

It was at this point in time that I retired from Thermo King. Because I was the primary advocate for the alternator/inverter concept, the product withered on the vine, and we didn’t get much of the competitor’s business. The reason for this, in my opinion, was that there wasn’t a new advocate at Thermo King to pick up where I had left off. If Thermo King had negotiated a better deal with the alternator or inverter manufacturer, or began a self manufacture program,during the product introduction process, I have no doubt that the product would have been a success. There is much more to this story than I am telling, but the point that I am making is that unless there is one or more advocates who understand how a new idea can make a difference, the idea could die of its own accord.

In case you don’t understand what I am saying, I recommend that you read a book about Steve Jobs. If it were not for Steve Jobs, Apple Computer would have become one of many successful companies that eventually ended up on the scrap heap of history. Instead, it has become the largest corporation in the United States today. As you may know, Steve Jobs was fired from Apple when it was doing quite well in the marketplace. The engineers and computer programmers essentially revolted because of Job’s trying new ideas and striving for perfection that led to what some considered abusive treatment of the engineers and programers. Of course, as you know, the managers took over and Apple almost went out of business. In desperation, they invited Steve back, and the rest is history. While I am no Steve Jobs, I understand what it takes to make revolutionary changes and evolve with the times. There needs to be one or more advocates who are willing to fight for changes that will keep a company ahead of their competition. Sometimes, this means not making compromises that could jeopardize the project. Too many times, others who are involved in the project do not understand the overall objective and can upset the applecart if not restrained.

It reminds me of the story about the chicken and pig who noticed a billboard showing a fried egg and ham breakfast. The chicken says, “Gee, it’s nice to be involved.” The pig responds, “You might be involved, but I’m committed!”

I can’t leave this subject without telling an additional story about Winston Churchill—arguably the greatest person of the twentieth century. As the story goes, Winston’s speech writer dropped Winston’s speech on his desk at the end of the day so that Winston could read it when he went home that night. The next day, Winston called the speech writer into his office. He slammed the speech on his desk and asked, “Is this the best that you can do?” The speech writer looked embarrassed and said, “I’ll redo it today.” The next day Winston did the same thing and said, “Is this the best that you can do?” Again the speech writer’s face became red and said, “I’ll redo it again.” On the third day, Winston did the same thing and said, “Is this the best that you can do?” Frustrated with this abusive treatment, the speechwriter finally said, “That’s the best that I can do! Winston then said, “OK, I’ll read it.”

I am telling these stories as a preamble to this chapter for a reason. In order for renewable energy to play a significant part in the future of energy production, it will not only require out-of-the-box thinking, it will also require advocates who know what they are doing and are willing to stick their necks out to make it happen. It is essential to have leaders who can see the overall picture and not allow their projects to take an unintended course—too many cooks spoiling the broth—so to speak.

What I am about to do is introduce you to some new out-of-the-box ideas that could dramatically change how renewable energy can be effectively used. As an engineer, I am inclined to see things as they could be rather than the way they are. To the best of my knowledge, these ideas have never been postulated. But I’ll bet that some engineers who are positioned at the far end of the conference table have thought of them but were afraid to speak up for fear of ridicule. Besides, I am not so arrogant as to believe that these are the best and only ideas that could be put forth. If you have some others, please me through my

website, and maybe, I’ll publish them in a sequel to this book.

The 12-Megawatt Wind Turbine

My evaluation shows that as the wind turbines get larger, the efficiency, costs, and land use are substantially improved. The problem is that building larger wind turbines significantly increases the difficulties associated with transportation and installation. However, when we mass produce thousands of wind turbines in remotely located energy parks and have small and large-scale zeppelins available to help with on-site construction, the situation could change dramatically.

Let’s begin with estimating the lowest possible price of wind power. As you probably know estimating price is not the same as estimating cost. During my many years in dealing with marketing managers, it became clear to me that price is not just a derivative of cost; it is also a function of what the market will bear. When I hear that wind power is two to three times more expensive than traditional sources, I question what this means—especially when government subsidies are involved.

From an engineering standpoint, the lowest cost for a product would be to own the mines that produce the raw materials and then own all of the facilities required to make a product—for convenience, let’s call the product a widget. Every time you place a “middleman” in the process, the cost goes up because the “middleman” needs to transport a subcomponent of the widget to the manufacturing site and make a profit. So if we could manufacture a widget with no “middlemen” involved, the product cost would be the cost of raw materials, manufacturing facility investments, and labor. Oh yes, I almost forgot, we also need to include the investment in product development, ongoing facility operational costs, and of course, sales and marketing. When products are mass produced, the dominant costs are materials and labor since the other expenses

are spread out. In other words, in simple , if the amortized cost of a manufacturing facility is $8 million per year, and the yearly operational expenses adds another $2 million, the products manufactured at the facility need to reflect these ongoing expenses. If the manufacturing facility produces 100 million widgets per year, the added cost per widget is only ten cents per widget.

From my own experience, I was interested in buying a small heat exchanger that was much smaller and more efficient than the one I was currently using. When I asked for the price, I found that the new heat exchanger was eight times more expensive but used less of the same types of materials. Logic told me that the higher price was because the new heat exchanger required expensive machinery and tooling to make, and the manufacturer was trying to recover his development and investment costs. Since I wanted the heat exchanger and I knew that the manufacturer wanted my potential business, I made an offer. The offer was that I would be willing to pay twice rather than eight times as much for the new heat exchanger. Although the sales representative was horrified at my offer, I asked that he approach the owners of the heat exchanger manufacturing company and tell them that I will buy a significant quantity of their product at the lower price and see what they say. About a week later, the sales representative said that his company would accept my offer. Obviously, I was pleased at this result, but I knew beforehand that the company would accept the offer. Why? Because I knew that the materials cost was no more than my current heat exchanger, and that I represented a significant new business to the heat exchanger manufacturing company. Since the heat exchanger company had already paid for the development cost of the heat exchanger and the machinery investment, my new business gave them increased profits, albeit not as much profit as they would have liked.

Why am I going though this explanation of price (not cost) estimating? Well, let’s use the previously described $2.5 million dollar 1.65-megawatt wind turbines that are installed in the State of Minnesota. As you may recall, these wind turbines had 16-foot-diameter pedestals that ran 30 feet into the ground, and the total weight of each turbine was 2.9 million pounds. At first glance, it looks like the materials alone could cost $2.5 million, but let’s take a closer look. The first thing to look at is the monstrous base. If we assume that the base was

made of solid reinforced concrete it would be comprised of about 223 cubic yards of concrete plus some rebar. Since the current national average price for concrete is $75 per cubic yard, the price of materials for the base would be $19,500 plus the cost of rebar. Let’s be generous and say that the material cost of the base is $25,000. Now, let’s say that the 16-foot-diameter pedestal was made of 0.75 inch thick steel and was 300 feet high. Based upon an average price of steel being about $0.50 per pound, the pedestal would cost about $280,000. Based upon some sketchy specification information, the nacelle weighs about 112,000 pounds and the blades weigh about 72,000 pounds. At an average price of about $1.5 per pound for the nacelle materials, we would add about $230,000. At $4.00 per pound for fiberglass, the blades should cost about $300,000. So if the cost of wind turbines was based upon materials alone, the total cost would be about $810,000. So how do we get to an installed price of $2.5 million? How do we add $1,690,000 for labor, transportation, amortized manufacturing facility costs, development costs, operational costs, and profits? Through on-site mass production and automation, I believe that these wind turbines could be installed for much less, but a significant up-front investment would be needed to automate the process.

Here is a summary of my cost estimates:

1. $280,000 materials cost for the concrete base and steel pedestal

2. $230,000 materials cost for the nacelle

3. $300,000 materials cost for the blades

4. $350,000 estimated cost for installation and other miscellaneous expenses

5. Total mass produced and installed price = $1,160,000

6. Cost per kilowatt at 25% capacity factor (413 actual kilowatts)= $2,820

Since my reduced price estimate of $1.16 million is less than half of the current sales price of $2.50 million, these wind turbines could become competitive with conventional power generation. The problem, of course, is the intermittent and unreliable nature of the wind and the huge amount of land needed for deployment. On the other hand, if we were to scale the wind turbines up in size, we would not only be much more competitive in of installed price, but the land space requirements would be substantially reduced. With regard to the unreliable nature of the wind, perhaps we could “piggyback” a modular nuclear power source into the wind turbine’s pedestal base and generate hydrogen instead of electricity to the grid. In this way, we can produce hydrogen any time the wind is blowing and possibly save on nuclear fuel cost or produce additional hydrogen at a lower cost than the modular nuclear plant.

Here is my 12-megawatt cost estimate breakdown:

1. $600,000 materials cost for the concrete base and steel pedestal

2. $450,000 materials cost for the nacelle

3. $850,000 materials cost for the blades

4. $530,000 estimated cost for manufacturing, installation and other

miscellaneous expenses

5. Total mass produced price = $2,430,000

6. Cost per kilowatt at 25% capacity factor (3,000 actual kilowatts) = $810

For this idea to work, we would need our installed wind turbine price to be less than the nuclear plant in addition its fuel consumption cost. Generally speaking, the average fuel cost over a forty-year life expectancy of a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is 1 billion. If we extrapolate that for a modular nuclear or 12megawatt wind turbine system, the fuel cost would be $12 million. Assuming that the $810 per kilowatt, 12-megawatt wind turbine also has a forty-year life expectancy the nuclear fuel would cost more. Let’s assume a cost per kilowatt of $600 for the 12-megawatt wind turbine because of shared construction costs resulting from being integrated with the nuclear plant:

12-megawatt wind turbine cost

= $1,800,000 (25% of rated capacity)

12-megawatt nuclear plant fuel cost = $9,000,000 (75% capacity factor over forty years) Total cost

= $10,800,000

12-megawatt nuclear plant fuel cost = $12,000,000 (100% capacity factor over forty years) Savings

= $1,200,000 (10.0 %)

So rather than have an unreliable 1,000-megawatt wind turbine array that is spread out over about 85 square miles, we can have a reliable 1,000-megawatt system comprised of a 12-megawatt nuclear power plant and 12-megawatt wind turbine that is spread out over about 25 square miles (less than 5 x 5 miles).

But that’s not all folks. Since the nuclear system can produce reliable power almost 100 percent of the time, it would make sense to tie it into the national electric grid system rather than shut it down when the wind is blowing. This would then result in additional revenue from the sale of electric power that could be used for purposes other than creating hydrogen. We could also increase the hydrogen-producing equipment to accommodate peak generating power. Because these revenue generating aspects need further cost analysis and evaluation, I won’t include them in my proposed plan, but keep them in mind if you are inclined to criticize my cost estimates.

Let’s take a look at how a 12-megawatt wind turbine or 12-megawatt nuclear combo might be constructed. First of all, the pedestal needs to be about 40 feet in diameter, about 650 feet tall, and buried about 75 feet deep into the ground. Because of the pedestal’s large size, it can serve as the reactor containment building, the steam turbine generator building, and cooling tower. Moreover, by making the nuclear plant in easy to install factory mass produced modules, the overall construction cost of the nuclear system should be considerably less. With this in mind, here is what I believe is the future for wind turbines.

12 Megawatt Wind Turbine with 16 Megawatt Nuclear Base

The first thing to notice is that a 16-megawatt modular water-cooled nuclear reactor is installed in the base of the pedestal—I will explain later why have chosen 16 rather than the previously mentioned 12 megawatts. Because the 650foot-tall pedestal is about 40 feet in diameter the space inside the pedestal is quite substantial and should be capable of accommodating the 16-megawatt modular reactor and ing steam equipment needed to generate electricity. Also incorporated in the upper portion of the pedestal is a cooling tower. Of course, overhead cranes and access doors should be incorporated to permit installation, refueling, equipment replacement, and nuclear plant decommissioning or replacement.

With this proposed system, we should be capable of producing a yearly average of 48-megawatts of electricity per square mile or 1,000-megawatts in 25 square miles.

With the obvious advantages that the 12-megawatt wind turbine and 16megawatt nuclear combo provide, it is fair to ask how can this monstrous system be manufactured and installed, even if it were done on a mass production bases in an energy park. Although I don’t have all the answers, here is how I envision the construction process.

12 Megawatt Wind Turbine Pedestal Construction

As you can see from this illustration, the pedestal is constructed in a horizontal position, with a temporary hinge, counterweight, and winch concept used to lift the entire assembly, including nacelle and blades to the vertical position. If needed a large-scale zeppelin can be used to assist in this process. Building the entire assembly near ground level offers many obvious advantages such as improved time for construction and worker safety. The concept shown for lifting the turbine to an upright position is just one of many possible proposals. The idea being that the equipment used for this process is temporary and doesn’t contribute much to the turbine’s overall cost.

As previously discussed, by building thousands of large generator systems in an energy park, we can spend lots of money on fixtures and equipment to reduce costs and accelerate the process. In my opinion, probably the biggest savings is the use of zeppelins. My reasoning is this. Since the energy park would be located in a remote location, it would be difficult and expensive to transport the many parts and materials needed to construct the generators on site. The zeppelins could do this without constructing access roads. In addition, the largesize construction equipment could not only be transported into the area without having to build roads but could also be moved from one location to another as the turbine construction progressed. This could include relocating inflatable tent factories. Since our objective will be to generate electricity for the purpose of producing liquefied hydrogen, we can also pick up and deliver the hydrogen using the same zeppelins.

I don’t want to get into a lot of detail about the specialized equipment needed to mass produce these 12-megawatt/nuclear giants, but to avoid too much criticism, I think it would be wise to at least identify the sequence of events for a energy park construction site:

1. Let’s assume that we will build enough nuclear/wind turbine systems to produce 50% of our nation’s hydrogen production in twenty years—57 thousand nuclear/wind turbines. Since each square mile of land area contains 4 nuclear/wind turbine systems, let’s assume that we can build 4 turbines in a 30day month at each one square mile site. At this rate of production, we would need to simultaneously build at 58 sites, thus 58 sets of production equipment.

2. When in full production, we will be working in a 5 square mile area with various construction events taking place simultaneously. Zeppelins will aid in the construction process at each site, and each construction event will be completed in thirty days or 10 construction events in a 300 day year.

3. In the first square mile—the beginning construction event—a 40-footdiameter tunnel boring machine will drill four 75-foot-deep holes. Temporary “army-style-bailey bridge” tracks will be positioned on temporary conical-shaped concrete blocks. 4 concrete production machines and 100 concrete delivery trucks will be placed into position.

4. Events occurring in the next adjacent square mile will consist of pouring the 40-foot-diameter concrete base, placing the nuclear reactor in position and placing equipment such as steam generators and turbines. Seventeen trolleys will be lined up along each turbine base with the temporary hinge placed into position. Specially designed cranes and other equipment will operate on parallel “bailey bridge” tracks.

5. The events taking place in the next adjacent square mile consist of placing a 40-foot-long steel pedestal section on each trolley. After orbital welding a steel section, the trolley remains in place to provide .

6. In the next square, mile we can install the nacelle, the propeller blades, and

internal equipment. When the equipment is installed the assembly is rotated to its vertical position

7. In the last square mile, we can finish the inside and make the turbine and nuclear generator operational.

As a result of these parallel steps, we can have four nuclear wind turbines operational every 30 days, and with 58 additional sites being developed, we could have as many as 57 thousand nuclear or 12-megawatt wind turbines operational in twenty years.

3-D Photovoltaic Solar s

How about adding 30 percent efficient 3-D solar s to the nuclear/wind turbine array? According to my calculations, the solar energy would average about 8 additional megawatts per square mile, thus if the solar s were priced right, we could save additional nuclear fuel cost. For this exercise, I will assume that the solar s are priced at an average of $0.25 per watt—one quarter of the current price.

Because of the potential benefits of this proposed system, let’s assume that we will construct 30 mile by 60 mile energy parks in remote areas of the United States and speculate on how they will be operated, maintained, and secured. To begin, let’s assume that one full-time person can operate and maintain a one square mile segment, thus requiring 5,400 workers on 8-hour shifts to provide around the clock coverage seven days per week. For convenience, they live in a housing community adjacent to the park but a few miles removed from it. As a result, they will not be subjected to the noise created by the wind turbines when at maximum speed. The workers could travel to and from their work sites using

20-enger helicopters—270 helicopters per 30 by 60 mile energy park location. Since the energy park would have a security fence, intrusion sensors, and surveillance cameras, especially for the purpose of preventing access to the nuclear facilities, an additional security force of about 400 would be required, thus 5,800 total workers per energy park. If 5,800 workers earned an average of $100,000 per year, the annual labor expense would be $580 million.

With all of the above being said, let’s look at a one square mile nuclear/wind turbine/solar combo concept:

Hybrid Nuclear/Wind turbine/Solar System

As you can see, I have placed a nonnuclear 12-megawatt wind turbine in the center of a one square mile array. The nonnuclear wind turbine will house the hydrogen electrolysis and liquefaction equipment and the surrounding nuclear/wind turbines and solar s will supply electricity to operate this equipment. Note that although there are 8 surrounding nuclear/wind turbines shown in this illustration, the equivalent of only three are generating electrical power to the central hydrogen processor (i.e. the four side turbines equal two and the four corner turbines equal one because of sharing with adjacent square mile arrays).

Each square mile of electrolysis and liquefaction equipment will generate about 16 thousand kilograms of liquefied hydrogen each day, and my proposed largescale zeppelin will make pickups every 14 days. The pickup pad also serves as a helicopter landing platform for personnel who operate and maintain the one square mile area.

Before leaving this subject, I should mention that we will need about 340 thousand megawatts of nuclear electricity for a 50 percent hydrogen plan. This will more than triple our current United States water-cooled fission nuclear fuel consumption. As a result, it will strain our supply of nuclear fuel and create more radioactive nuclear waste products. As you must know by now, I have advocated the use of breeder reactors in the thermo-chemical hydrogen production process to extend the nuclear fuel supply and to dispose of long-lived radioactive waste. The short-lived radioactive waste can be safely stored in the wind turbine pedestals or in geologically stable salt mines. With regard to refueling the 16megawatt nuclear reactors and removing radioactive waste, I’ll say this. Because there would be 42 thousand 16 megawatt reactors that will need infrequent refueling, traveling helicopter teams of refueling experts would operate continuously. In effect, the on-site operators would not be needed for this specialized task.

From a safety standpoint, consider this—the nuclear core is in a concrete containment that is 75 feet underground and has a pool of water located in a concrete container above the reactor. In the event of a jet plane flying into the pedestal, the reactor would be automatically shutdown, because the gravity fed overhead water will moderate the nuclear reaction. This is the general principle behind the safety feature of navy nuclear reactors (i.e. the reason why the reactor was designed to be water cooled). Moreover, if a rogue operator wanted to deliberately cause a nuclear meltdown, it would be virtually impossible. If an attempt was made to override the automated control system, the control rods would act, by gravity, as the first line of defense to shut the system down. If an attempt were made to drain the overhead water, the reactor would automatically shut down by dropping the control rods. Furthermore, if a bomb were placed in the reactor, the nuclear chain reaction would stop, and the overhead water would fill the reactor containment volume. Without going into further detail about the safety features of current day nuclear reactors, suffice it to say that the chance of reactor meltdown would be virtually impossible.

Non-Conventional Geothermal

While the above mentioned land based system may sound like an answer, I have two concerns that need to be addressed. The first concern is having a solar plant near cooling towers that could form clouds which may block the sun. The second concern is using valuable land near the Ogallala Aquifer, which is in a high wind zone, that could produce crops. Because of these concerns, I recommend that we back off and go with a lesser plan.

In the lesser plan, perhaps the Ogallala-based energy parks could delete the solar option and grow crops between the wind turbines. Energy parks located in the state of Nevada might consider eliminating the nuclear option and employ nonconventional geothermal. As shown in the nonconventional geothermal map below, the Nevada region has a lot of potential:

Non Conventional Geothermal Map

Furthermore, the 650-foot-tall by 40-foot-diameter wind turbine pedestal seems to be an appropriate height for drilling several miles below ground—we’ll see.

Because I am not able to estimate the costs associated with nonconventional geothermal systems, I will not include them in my recommendations, but they should be considered when finalizing a plan. In the meantime, I’ll recommend keeping the nuclear option for the Nevada energy park locations

The Nuclear/OTEC System

While the previous discussion described a viable land based nuclear and renewable energy system for producing liquefied hydrogen, it needs to be located in class 4 to 5 wind zones in sparsely populated parts of the United States. Because of this restriction, the system locations are far removed from high usage areas and thus require long-distance transportation of the hydrogen produced. Even if zeppelins are used, a round trip of more than two thousand miles or more requires time and capital costs that might be better accommodated by an ocean-based system.

To meet this need, I have invented the ocean-based concept shown below:

700 Megawatt “Submergible” Self Contained Hydrogen Producing Ocean Hybrid System

As shown, this system also utilizes modular NAVY nuclear reactors that are clustered around a centrally located OTEC system. I have also included ocean current generators that take advantage of the Gulfstream and California Currents. The reason for including them is because it may be possible to generate low-cost power in the same way that we did with the 12-megawatt wind turbine, thus saving on nuclear fuel cost.

The big advantage of this concept is that it uses waste heat from the nuclear reactors to make the OTEC system much more efficient and doesn’t require that it be placed in tropical waters. In addition, since the OTEC system generates fresh water as a by-product of its power generation, there would be a continuous source of water to produce hydrogen, and because the concept is designed to produce hydrogen, all systems are self-contained. As a result, long-distance underwater electric transmission lines are not required and liquefied hydrogen can be delivered via tanker catamarans to populated coastal sites along the east and west coast of the United States, or exported to the world. Alternately, zeppelins will be more cost-effective and have greater access to inland areas. Notice that the proposed concept is capable of being submerged; whether or not this feature is necessary, remains to be seen. In any event, having the system jostled about during wind storms and hurricanes is certainly not desirable.

My opinion at this point is that the nuclear/OTEC system offers a distinct alternative to the nuclear/wind/solar land-based system. So by including it in the mix, we will have competition. If the costs become too high for either system, a midstream adjustment could be made.

The Solar Power Tower

Currently, I don’t believe that the power tower concept will be a cost-effective renewable energy solution and will not be included in my final recommendation.

However, the fact that power towers are being deployed by Southern California Edison and the wind turbine pedestal can double as the tower, there may be a cost benefit that will make this idea workable. Since the heat exchanger could heat a molten salt solution and produce power on demand makes the concept interesting.

The Floating Air Rotor

The Mageen floating air rotor in its current form is not as efficient as propeller and pedestal wind turbines, but with modification, they might turn out to be costeffective. If the air rotors were deployed at twice the height of a wind turbine, the available wind power is generally increased by 34 percent. Since we will already have wind turbine pedestals reaching a height of more than 650 feet— the proposed 12-megawatt wind turbine—the ability to reach twice this height without having the attached cable weight restricting altitude, the air rotor might become cost-effective and reduce land area requirements. My contention is that air rotor efficiency can be further improved by employing a wind concentrator.

A Wind and Solar Power Tower Solution

Although not recommended at this time, the concept below employs a wind turbine, floating air rotor, and power tower. As you can see, three renewable energy sources utilize the wind turbine pedestal, thus reducing the cost of each system. Although I have chosen a 5-megawatt wind turbine on top of a 650 tall pedestal, rather than the 12-megawatt version, it doesn’t preclude using a higher megawatt version when all costs are tallied. With a 650-foot-tall tower, I would expect the wind turbine to have a capacity factor of 30 percent rather than 25 percent or 1.5 megawatts of average annual output. Moreover with the air rotor deployed at about 1,600 feet, I would estimate that a 4-megawatt air rotor will also achieve about 1.5 megawatts of average annual output. Here is an illustration that shows how this concept might be deployed:

Chapter 12

The Jet-stream

After examining Sky Wind Power’s “autogiro” concept in further detail, it occurred to me that using the Jet-stream may be the best renewable energy solution of all, and that’s why I have dedicated a separate chapter to discuss it. At 25 thousand feet, the Jet-stream generates winds in excess of 70 miles per hour. If we could harness this wind, the economics of wind generated power may prove to be the least expensive method. However, factors such as blocking airline traffic routes and possible 50-thousand-foot-long tether lines need to be considered.

Although not part of my final recommendations, here is my proposed concept:

30 Megawatt Jetstream Wind Turbine (based upon 70 miles per hour wind speed)

Notice how my previously proposed zeppelin just happens to be the right size to make this concept work. Instead of using the zeppelin’s carbon fiber cables to hold a lifting device, this concept uses them to hold a specially designed light weight 3-megawatt wind turbine nacelle and propeller. It’s interesting to note that when the 3-megawatt wind turbine is deployed in an average 70 miles per hour Jet-stream, it can generate about 30 megawatts per hour of consistent year round power. This compares with an average yearly output of about 0.75 megawatts of inconsistent power when placed in class 5 winds at ground level. Sounds interesting, doesn’t it?

Considering the fact that the 3-megawatt wind turbines currently have an installed price tag of about $4 million each, imagine how much more we would be getting for our money. Although we won’t need the expensive pedestal, we will need an expensive torus-shaped zeppelin to lift the wind turbine and auxiliary equipment, including the tether, to an altitude of about 25 thousand feet.

Before going further, let’s look at how this concept is deployed on the ground:

30 Megawatt Jetstream Wind Turbine Positioned on the Ground

As shown in this illustration the 3 megawatt wind turbine has been winched and rotated into the protective center portion of the torus—and no ground based enclosure is required.

With an ability to be deployed at varying altitudes, it is not clear at this time how many wind turbines can be placed in a one square mile land based area, so to be conservative I have chosen 150 megawatts—which equates to about six times the area required for conventional power generation or about 3 times less area than the previously described nuclear/wind/solar hybrid system.

Probably the most important technical problem that needs to be addressed for this system is the tether/electrical transmission line. Because of sag and the horizontal flight characteristics of the system, the line length probably needs to be about 50 thousand feet—rather than just the vertical height of 25 thousand feet. Although it may be possible to one day have a carbon nanotube tether, I don’t think it will be available soon enough at a reasonable price. If it were available, it could have tensile strength of about 140 billion pounds per square inch, a density of about 0.05 pounds per cubic inch, and be capable of transmitting electricity in a manner similar to super conductivity without a low temperature requirement. In contrast, today’s carbon fiber rope has a tensile strength of about 500 thousand pounds per square inch and a density of about 0.065 pounds per cubic inch and is also capable efficiently transmitting electricity. If we were to purchase 50 thousand feet of 1.15 inch diameter insulated carbon fiber rope for about $50 per foot, the price would be $2.5 million and it would weigh about 45 thousand pounds.

With regard to other costs associated with using this concept for the production of liquefied hydrogen, I have assumed that an investor consortium builds the appropriate factories to make the concept a reality.

Here is a breakdown of estimated costs:

Zeppelin factory

$400,000

per system/amortized 10 yrs/120 per year

Wind turbine factory

$150,000

per system/amortized 10 yrs/100 per year

Electrolyser factory

$150,000

per system/amortized 10 yrs/100 per year

Cryogenic factory

$150,000

per system/amortized 10 yrs/100 per year

Huey helicopter factory

$40,000

per system/amortized 10 yrs/300 per year

Labor & overhead

$1,480,000 1,400 workers/$80k overhead

Zeppelin. material cost

$1,400,000 at $8/lb—carbon composite

Zeppelin bladder/skin cost $900,000

at $2 and $7/lb—rubber/Kevlar

Wind turbine material cost $800,000

at $8/lb—titanium/carbon composite

Electrolyzer material cost $7,000,000 at $7/lb—various materials Cryogenic material cost

$2,000,000 at $1/lb—steel/various

Huey material cost

$300,000

Tether line cost

$2,750,000 $50/ft—carbon fiber

Hydrogen

$120,000

at $10/lb—various $4/1,000 cubic feet

Total cost per system Total cost per 100 systems

$17,640,000 per year for 10 years $1,764,000,000

Using these cost estimates, let’s assume that the investor consortium were to produce 100 liquefied hydrogen-producing systems each year for an amortized time period of 10 years. The liquefied hydrogen could be delivered by zeppelin to remote locations (one zeppelin per 5 hydrogen-producing systems) and sold for less than the current delivered price of hydrogen—$1.65 per kilogram. Let’s assume a delivered price of $1.20 per kilogram.

The table below shows how this process, through progressive investing, could be a terrific profit maker:

Year Investment

Gross Income at $1.20/kg H Net Income/loss

1

$1,765,000,000 $450,000,000

-$1,315,000,000

2

$1,765,000,000 $900,000,000

-$865,000,000

3

$1,765,000,000 $1,350,000,000

-$415,000,000 -$2,595,000,000 Net Loss

4

$1,765,000,000 $1,800,000,000

$35,000,000

5

$1,765,000,000 $2,250,000,000

$485,000,000

6

$1,765,000,000 $2,700,000,000

$935,000,000

7

$1,765,000,000 $3,150,000,000

$1,385,000,000

8

$1,765,000,000 $3,600,000,000

$1,835,000,000

9

$1,765,000,000 $4,050,000,000

$2,285,000,000

10

$1,765,000,000 $4,500,000,000

$2,735,000,000 $7,100,000,000 Net Profit

As you can see, if $2.6 billion were invested, an income of $7.1 billion would result after 10 years—and does not include compound interest on the yearly profits.

This isn’t the only way that investors can make a profit. Let’s say that the investor consortium made the hydrogen-producing system for about $18 million and sold them for $25 million. At a profit of $7 million each for 100 systems sold per year, they would net a yearly profit of $700 million. The investor who buys the systems then finances the equipment over a ten-year time frame—thus making a yearly payout of $2,500 million plus operational expenses for 100 systems with an income of $4,500 million. Using this scenario, the cost of producing and delivering (by zeppelin) liquefied hydrogen would be $0.67 per kilogram. As a point of reference, the amount of liquefied hydrogen produced by 100 systems would constitute only 2.2 percent of the total amount that would be consumed in the United States if it were used as transportation fuel.

Although Jet-stream hydrogen can be made for the purpose of replacing current hydrogen production methods, let’s look at this idea from a much grander perspective. How about replacing 100 percent of transportation fuels used by the United States with hydrogen? To produce 100 percent of transportation fuels, we will need about 46,000—30-megawatt systems that are spread out over an area of about 7,500 square miles (to for ground based operations). The illustration shown below will give some idea of how this might look:

Proposed Location for Jetstream Wind Turbines (Approximate size of 100% hydrogen system for the U.S.)

As you can see by the size of the 50 by 150 mile rectangle, the commercial jet air traffic blockage could be substantial. For safety reasons, the tether cable “ribbons” should be lighted and possibly equipped with radar sensors that disconnect when an aircraft is approaching. If the tethers are disconnected, each air rotor could maneuver by remote control and land in a designated area. And just to be complete in this analysis—a single 10-foot-diameter pipeline connected to a nearby river can supply all of the fresh water needed to produce the required amount of hydrogen.

I should point out that the 3-megawatt wind turbine used in this example would be quite different from its ground based counterpart. For one thing, it would need to be much lighter in weight in order for it to be lifted to the 25-thousand-foot altitude. Weight reductions would include using carbon composites, eliminating motorized blade rotation, and reduced gearing. Since the Jet-stream version operates continually at a much higher rotational speed, the need to produce power at low speeds is eliminated. This allows for the use of a multi-pole electric generator which virtually eliminates the use of very heavy gears. Of course, the gearing needed to rotate the nacelle relative to the pedestal would also be eliminated. Although the ground based version of the 3-megawatt wind turbine uses fiberglass blades, we will probably need to use carbon composite blades, which are much more expensive. If the properties of steel are needed, we will probably use titanium. Although these and other material changes will add to the overall cost, their corrosion resistance will make them last longer, hopefully forty years or more. If needed, the torus structure could be modified to use more expensive lighter weight materials—I have made this assumption in the above cost estimates. In any event, it is obvious to me that the Jet-stream system would be the least expensive method, by far, to generate and liquefy hydrogen.

Whether or not, the Jet-stream concept ever gets off the ground (pardon the pun) is a matter of further detailed study. If the study and prototype test results are favorable, it will then require a will to make it happen. If looked at from the standpoint of providing small-scale localized electric power or hydrogen, there may be many worldwide applications. In fact, if made in the United States, it could be exported worldwide to remote locations. My main concern is for disruption of aircraft flight paths, and the carbon fiber tether strength. With regard to the tether strength requirement, it would need to be quite substantial to hold the air rotors stationary in 70 or more miles per hour high altitude winds, in spite of the less dense air. I believe that for winds exceeding 90 miles per hour, the air rotors would need to be brought below the Jet-stream to avoid breaking or disconnecting the tether.

At this point, you are probably saying that a Hindenburg-style hydrogen fire could be quite costly. In response to this concern, here are the points that I would make:

1. With about 46 thousand deployed wind turbines that cost about $460 billion, the loss of one $10 million wind turbine would constitute 0.0022 percent.

2. A hydrogen fire should be a very rare event based upon the Hindenburg track record and previously discussed cause of a fire.

3. All wind turbines would be located over unpopulated land, and their GPScontrolled spacing would prevent one incident affecting another.

4. Hydrogen fires are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere with little or no radiated heat, thus leaving most of the frame and propulsion system undamaged and capable of landing for repairs.

Other concerns are listed below:

1. If the wind turbine assembly were deliberately attacked by a terrorist, the incident would affect only a small percentage of the total.

2. If an aircraft accidentally hit the wind turbine tether line, a “break away” system of attachment to the wind turbine assembly might prevent damage to the aircraft.

3. In the event of a tether line “break away,” the wind turbine assembly would be returned back to its base by remote control.

4. Hydrogen refill due to leakage could be accomplished on a periodic basis— probably once every six months, by lowering the wind turbine assembly to about 5 thousand feet and servicing with a hydrogen tanker zeppelin.

5. If a tear in the torus skin was to occur, several remedies are possible, including lowering the wind turbine assembly and patching.

I should mention that while writing this part of the book and seeing the potential of the Jet-stream system, I was tempted to revise everything that I am recommending and put all of my eggs into this basket. The reason why I haven’t done so is because I believe that most people, including some engineers, would think that the concept is too far outside of the box. So what I am doing is making it clear that I favor pursuing this idea. If research proves my case, we should at least be prepared to shift gears if the actual costs of other systems become

excessive.

When compared to conventional land-based wind turbines, just think of the advantages—low cost per megawatt produced, 70 to 90 percent capacity factor rather than 25 percent, much less land area required, no bird kill, and no offensive noise. Then how about an ocean-based system that uses the previously described submergible nuclear/OTEC base to the tether cable winch and supply fresh water? It could be that the zeppelin system could sustain hurricane winds without being submerged or the OTEC base could move to a safe zone if needed. In any event, this potential concern would need to be addressed.

Chapter 13

The Thermo-chemical Process

Except for the Jet-stream concept, the least expensive way to generate hydrogen from water is probably the thermo-chemical process. Rather than using 55 kilowatts of electricity to produce one equivalent gallon of hydrogen gas, the thermo-chemical process could do it for the equivalent of 33 kilowatts. To be specific, here’s how the sulfur-iodine thermo-chemical process works:

The way that I envision implementation of the thermo-chemical process is to use the energy produced by modular breeder and very high temperature reactors (VHTR’s). As stated earlier these plants will utilize water from my proposed water pipeline/aqueduct for cooling and for producing hydrogen (As previously mentioned, it takes two and one half gallons of water to produce one equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen). Since it has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words let’s examine what I am proposing:

As shown, each hydrogen production zone would require 24 20-megawatt breeder reactors servicing one “Claude” system (to be discussed in the Appendix) liquefaction plant, and 4 600-megawatt thermal VHTR reactors thermo-chemically producing hydrogen gas. Nuclear fuel processing plants would be built to service six zones, and pickup/drop-off pads for zeppelins would be spaced as needed. If the system provided 100 percent of United States consumption requirements, 600 production zones would be required.

The need to use breeder reactors in this proposal should be easy to understand because we don’t have enough known uranium reserves for long-term conventional nuclear power operation. As previously mentioned, the total known worldwide uranium reserve is only 3,500 thousand tons, and the current uranium usage rate, from operating 438 water-cooled nuclear reactors worldwide is about 67 thousand tons per year. At this rate, the known reserves will be depleted in about fifty-two years. If conventional water-cooled reactors were used in my proposal, the known reserves of uranium would be depleted in about 16 years, assuming no other nuclear power expansion. By using the “breeder” reactor, we can extend the duration of uranium usage by about 60 times, and by using VHTR reactors for hydrogen gas production, we can extend the duration of uranium usage by about 13 times. Of course, the breeder and VHTR reactors should eventually be replaced with fusion reactors, when the technology is ready.

To be specific, I recommend using the design equivalent of the EBR II—20megawatt reactor since it had operated successfully, without incident, for over 25 years. While it is over designed for safety, it eliminates controversy. Because, it can be mass produced and delivered to its deployment site via zeppelins, the added cost of numerous overhead cranes and other equipment can be offset. See the illustrations below:

The EBR II Breeder Reactor Electric Power Plant

The 20 million pounds of concrete used for the containment building and missile shield adds about 6 percent to the cost of each plant and requires about twenty zeppelin round trips to deliver twenty modular sections, but the internal structures—the reactor, pumps, intermediate heat exchanger, piping, etc. could be delivered as completed assemblies. Modular steam power plants would add another six zeppelin trips for each plant. When field assembled, each 20megawatt structure will be a stand-alone electric power producing system, with only water line connections to a water-holding lake and a short-run electric transmission line to the hydrogen liquefaction plant. In my opinion, a catastrophic accident is not credible, and to save on decommissioning costs, the reactor and electric generating system could be dismantled and replaced after a forty-year life.

For further clarification, the basic design of a breeder reactor plant is shown below:

The thing to notice here is the use of liquid sodium as the reactor coolant, and there is enough sodium contained in the proposed system to extinguish the nuclear chain reaction in case of an emergency. Because sodium is used to generate steam, an intrinsic problem exists with regard to a leak in the steam generator that might cause a sodium water reaction. Without going into a lot of detail about how the sodium water reaction is accommodated, I have chosen to use numerous 20-megawatt steam generator modules so that in the event of a sodium water reaction, or other reason for shutdown, the effect on hydrogen production will be minimal. In fact, as mentioned before, a mass produced modular design is desirable for any power plant because of reduced costs associated with shutdowns. Shutting a $2 billion dollar 1,000-megawatt power plant down for one day can cost millions of dollars in lost revenue.

As a personal note, I worked as an engineer for seventeen years with Westinghouse’s Advanced Reactors Division, and I am very familiar with breeder reactor design and the steam generator in particular.

Regarding the VHTR system, an illustration is shown below:

Basic Design of a Very High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor

As the name implies, VHTR’s produce very high temperatures that can be used to separate hydrogen and oxygen from a water molecule using the sulfur–iodine thermo-chemical method—described above. As previously stated, it is 40 percent more energy efficient than the electrolysis method, and therefore, it is potentially the most cost-effective.

At this point, you are probably asking why we don’t use this more efficient process rather than renewable energy and electrolysis. Good question—and you deserve an explanation. Here is my rational:

1. The commercial application the breeder/VHTR thermo-chemical process is currently not ready for immediate full-scale implementation.

2. The natural gas system is currently available as a first step for immediate implementation.

3. The renewable energy and conventional nuclear systems are currently being developed and can be implemented in a relatively short amount of time.

4. We should not put all of our eggs in one basket, and for reasons of security, we should not concentrate all of our energy sources in one location.

5. If we can reduce renewable energy costs (a la the 12-megawatt wind turbine) to below the cost of conventional power generation, including nuclear systems, they could become competitive with the thermo-chemical process.

6. When the real costs and problems associated with each method are known, the program can adjust at that time.

Chapter 14

The Ninth Wonder

Someone once said that compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. In 1626, Peter Minuit, a member of a Dutch fur trading company negotiated a deal with the native American Lenape people to buy Manhattan Island New York for 60 guilders which some say was the equivalent of 24 US dollars. However, further study showed that the amount was closer to one thousand dollars in modern currency when compared to the price of bread and other goods sold at that time. If the Lenape people had invested that $1,000 at a 5 percent annual compound interest rate, its value today would be about $160 billion. While Manhattan is worth more than that today, it points out how money can grow substantially over time.

Although briefly illustrated in the last chapter, let me introduce to you what I consider to be the ninth wonder of the world—progressive investing. My definition of progressive investing is as follows. If an investor purchases a McDonald’s franchise and makes a profit during the first year, it might make sense for him (or her) to purchase a second McDonalds the next year and make twice as much profit. If the investor had enough money available, he (or she) might buy another and another until the profits provided enough money to buy the next McDonalds—and so forth. After a breakeven point is reached (i.e. where the accumulated yearly profit equals the amount needed to buy the next franchise), the investor can continue to buy McDonald’s franchises and make more and more profit without investing any more their own money. The investor could have purchased the total number of “breakeven-point” franchises at the beginning but wouldn’t have the benefit of reinvesting the incrementally increasing profits or other available investment money that might be accumulating elsewhere over time.

Using the above example, let’s look at how progressive investing might result in substantial profits from making and selling hydrogen made from natural gas. Let’s say that we can purchase a natural gas to hydrogen gas reforming plant for an installed purchase price of $1,000 for each equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen gas (about one kilogram of hydrogen) produced each day. Since our hydrogen processing plant will need tanker trucks to deliver the hydrogen to

fueling stations, we need to liquefy the hydrogen. To do this, we will need liquefaction equipment that will cost about $200 for each equivalent gasoline gallon of hydrogen gas produced each day.

If we build a plant that produces 30 thousand kilograms per day, our capital cost would be $36 million. Our operational expenses are assumed to be $1 of natural gas per kilogram of gaseous hydrogen (about $5 per 1,000 cubic feet) and a wholesale price of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour of electric power. Since we will need 15 kilowatts of power to liquefy the hydrogen gas, we will add another $0.75 per kilogram. Let’s now add another $0.25 for operating personnel, maintenance, and other expenses, thus resulting in a production cost of $2 per kilogram of liquefied hydrogen. We now sell the liquefied hydrogen to the oil companies for $3 per kilogram at the plant site. The oil companies pick up the liquefied hydrogen at the plant site in tanker trucks and deliver it to fueling stations where it is sold to consumers for about $4 per kilogram.

OK, with the above numbers in mind, how does progressive investing work out? Here is a forty-year plan in which we double our investment each year:

Year Capital cost Nat. Gas cost Elec. Cost

Operating Cost Gross Inc.

Net Inc.

1

$36,000,000 $10,950,000 $8,212,500

$2,737,500

$32,850,000 -$25,050,000

2

$36,000,000 $21,900,000 $16,425,000 $5,475,000

$65,700,000 -$14,100,000

3

$36,000,000 $32,850,000 $24,637,500 $8,212,500

$98,550,000 -$3,150,000

4

$36,000,000 $43,800,000 $32,850,000 $10,950,000

$131,400,000 $7,800,000

5

$36,000,000 $54,750,000 $41,062,500 $13,687,500

$164,250,000 $18,750,000

6

$36,000,000 $65,700,000 $49,275,000 $16,425,000

$197,100,000 $29,700,000

7

$36,000,000 $76,650,000 $57,487,500 $19,162,500

$229,950,000 $40,650,000

8

$36,000,000 $87,600,000 $65,700,000 $21,900,000

$262,800,000 $51,600,000

9

$36,000,000 $98,550,000 $73,912,500 $24,637,500

$295,650,000 $62,550,000

10

$36,000,000 $109,500,000 $82,125,000 $27,375,000

$328,500,000 $73,500,000

11

$36,000,000 $120,450,000 $90,337,500 $30,112,500

$361,350,000 $84,450,000

12

$36,000,000 $131,400,000 $98,550,000 $32,850,000

$394,200,000 $95,400,000

13

$36,000,000 $142,350,000 $106,762,500 $35,587,500

$427,050,000 $106,350,000

14

$36,000,000 $153,300,000 $114,975,000 $38,325,000

$459,900,000 $117,300,000

15

$36,000,000 $164,250,000 $123,187,500 $41,062,500

$492,750,000 $128,250,000

16

$36,000,000 $175,200,000 $131,400,000 $43,800,000

$525,600,000 $139,200,000

17

$36,000,000 $186,150,000 $139,612,500 $46,537,500

$558,450,000 $150,150,000

18

$36,000,000 $197,100,000 $147,825,000 $49,275,000

$591,300,000 $161,100,000

19

$36,000,000 $208,050,000 $156,037,500 $52,012,500

$624,150,000 $172,050,000

20

$36,000,000 $219,000,000 $164,250,000 $54,750,000

$657,000,000 $183,000,000

21

$36,000,000 $229,950,000 $172,462,500 $57,487,500

$689,850,000 $193,950,000

22

$36,000,000 $240,900,000 $180,675,000 $60,225,000

$722,700,000 $204,900,000

23

$36,000,000 $251,850,000 $188,887,500 $62,962,500

$755,550,000 $215,850,000

24

$36,000,000 $262,800,000 $197,100,000 $65,700,000

$788,400,000 $226,800,000

25

$36,000,000 $273,750,000 $205,312,500 $68,437,500

$821,250,000 $237,750,000

26

$36,000,000 $284,700,000 $213,525,000 $71,175,000

$854,100,000 $248,700,000

27

$36,000,000 $295,650,000 $221,737,500 $73,912,500

$886,950,000 $259,650,000

28

$36,000,000 $306,600,000 $229,950,000 $76,650,000

$919,800,000 $270,600,000

29

$36,000,000 $317,550,000 $238,162,500 $79,387,500

$952,650,000 $281,550,000

30

$36,000,000 $328,500,000 $246,375,000 $82,125,000

$985,500,000 $292,500,000

Capital Cost

$6.17 Billion

Net income $4.05 Billion

40 $36,000,000 $438,000,000 $328,500,000 $109,500,000 $1,314,000,000 $402,000,000

Capital Cost

$19.40 Billion

Net income $7.57 Billion

As you can see after thirty years, our total investment is about $6.71 billion and our accumulated net income (without ing for inflation or accumulated compound interest) is $4.05 billion. At the end the equipment’s forty-year life expectancy, it would need to be continually replaced at $36 million per year, but the net income would remain steady at about $400 million per year. Now notice that the up-front investment is only about $43 million. Wow! The ninth wonder of the world.

What you may not realize in this progressive investment exercise is that after forty years of investing, we will produce only about 0.26 percent of the total amount of hydrogen needed to fuel all the transportation vehicles in the United States. When extrapolated to 100 percent, the total expenditures would be about $7.6 trillion with an accumulated net income of about $2.9 trillion and would require about 15,600 equivalent facilities positioned at scattered locations around the United States. Of course, in order to insure the profits remain constant, we need to adjust for increased, or decreased, plant and fuel expenses as time goes by.

Using the above example, let’s look at how progressive investing might be for making and selling hydrogen made from water using the electrolysis method. But before I begin, it’s important to understand how a water electrolysis system makes and delivers hydrogen to your vehicle. Here is a simplified way of explaining it. Let’s assume that an investor purchases a number of wind turbines and associated equipment that are capable of producing 30 thousand kilograms of liquefied hydrogen per day, the same as the natural gas reformers mentioned above. The system needed for this process is illustrated below:

Hydrogen Electrolysis System

As shown, the wind turbines generate electricity and the electrolysis uses the electricity to transform water into hydrogen and oxygen gases (about 55 kilowatts). The hydrogen gas is then sent to a central processing station via a pipeline (a hydrogen gas pipeline may be an early alternative to transporting liquefied hydrogen via zeppelins). About 23 kilowatts of electricity is also sent via a transmission line to the processing station at the end of the pipeline for the purpose of liquefying the hydrogen gas (15 kilowatts for liquefaction and 8 kilowatts for transmission losses). Delivery trucks then transport the liquefied hydrogen to a gas station where it is dispensed to your vehicle.

If we assume $2,000 per actual kilowatt produced by the wind turbine system, its cost would be $195 million. When the associated equipment for making and delivering liquefied hydrogen to a central station is added, the total is almost doubled to about $375 million Now let’s assume that we invest $375 million each year by progressively adding one additional system (again we are selling the hydrogen for $3.00 per kilogram):

Year Capital cost

Fuel Cost Water Cost Operating Cost Gross Inc.

Net Inc.

1

$375,000,000 $0

$164,250

$2,737,500

$32,850,000

($345,051,750)

2

$375,000,000 $0

$328,500

$5,475,000

$65,700,000

($315,103,500)

3

$375,000,000 $0

$492,750

$8,212,500

$98,550,000

($285,155,250)

4

$375,000,000 $0

$657,000

$10,950,000

$131,400,000 ($255,207,000)

5

$375,000,000 $0

$821,250

$13,687,500

$164,250,000 ($225,258,750)

6

$375,000,000 $0

$985,500

$16,425,000

$197,100,000 ($195,310,500)

7

$375,000,000 $0

$1,149,750 $19,162,500

$229,950,000 ($165,362,250)

8

$375,000,000 $0

$1,314,000 $21,900,000

$262,800,000 ($135,414,000)

9

$375,000,000 $0

$1,478,250 $24,637,500

$295,650,000 ($105,465,750)

10

$375,000,000 $0

$1,642,500 $27,375,000

$328,500,000 ($75,517,500)

11

$375,000,000 $0

$1,806,750 $30,112,500

$361,350,000 ($45,569,250)

12

$375,000,000 $0

$1,971,000 $32,850,000

$394,200,000 ($15,621,000)

Total Cost

$4.7 Billion

Net loss $2.2 Billion

40 $375,000,000 $0 $6,570,000 $109,500,000 $1,314,000,000 $822,930,000

Total Cost

$17.4 Billion

Net income $9.6 Billion

Notice that the forty year accumulated net income for the wind and electrolysis system is $9.6 billion with annual revenues of $0.82 billion versus $7.6 billion accumulated for the natural gas system and annual revenues of only $400 million. So contrary to what some may believe, when we assume a forty-year life for both systems, the wind system payoff is much better in the long run.

Because of mass production, it is not unreasonable to assume that the purchased equipment costs might go down rather than up. However, in the case of natural gas and electricity pricing, increased demand and reduced availability usually means increased prices. So for those who would hang their hat on an all natural gas transportation fuel supply system, they might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

So what’s the big deal ing 78 kilowatts of energy to make a kilogram of hydrogen that contains only 36 kilowatts of energy? When the energy derived from wind is free and the equipment needed to convert wind energy into electricity is reasonably priced, it’s not such a bad deal. Well, the problem, of course, is the massive amount of land that might be required. If 5-megawatt wind turbines were used in the above example to produce enough hydrogen to provide 100 percent of the nation’s transportation fuel requirement, we would need about 300 thousand square miles of land, about the size of Texas and South Carolina.

There are several other issues that we need to deal with in making the wind and electrolysis system viable. The first issue is my assumed cost of equipment. At current pricing, the progressive investment plan would not work. The cost per actual kilowatt is closer to $4,000 rather than my assumed $2,000, and the electrolysis equipment pricing is much higher than I have assumed. The next issue is the forty-year life expectancy. Current wind turbines and processing equipment are designed for twenty years. If we assume a twenty-year life expectancy, the progressive investment plan fails since at the twenty year

replacement time period there would be a net loss of $1.2 billion. This is because our wholesale selling price for liquefied hydrogen is only $3 per kilogram. If we assumed a higher selling price, the system could be profitable, but it would not be competitive with natural gas reforming. Therefore, it is mandatory that this equipment have a design life of at least forty years. As an engineer, I can assure you that with proper design, this equipment can last forty years with appropriate maintenance and continuous remanufacturing of some component parts. I’ll spare you the details of how this is done, but trust me, it can be done. We can’t afford to have built in obsolescence if we are going to make wind energy a viable part of the energy mix.

As previously shown, a mass produced 12-megawatt wind turbine could produce electricity for $810 per actual kilowatt rather than the $2,000 per kilowatt used in the above example, and by supplementing the system with nuclear power, we could reduce the cost of the hydrogen electrolysis and cryogenic equipment by 75 percent (because our capacity factor would be 100 rather than 25 percent). With these reduced costs in mind and the potential for increased natural gas prices, how good does the reforming system look to you now?

As an aside, I hope that some nontechnical people are reading and digesting what I have just presented. In my opinion, too many of today’s energy decisions are being made based upon erroneous assumptions. If Henry Ford had based his Model T on the pricing of cars made in his day, we might not have had the affordable cars that we have today. The problem, as I see it, is that power plants, renewable energy generating equipment and hydrogen processing equipment are being treated like the pre−Model T automobiles. Where is the vision of a Henry Ford when we need it? If you think that General Electric or some other wind turbine manufacturer will make the investments necessary to dramatically lower the installed cost and increase the longevity of wind turbines to forty years, think again. With our astute government subsidizing their product, what is their incentive to develop on-site mass production facilities, “piggybacking” nuclear, solar, or geothermal systems to reduce cost and land requirements or increasing the cost of their products to make them last forty years? Folks, it ain’t going to happen it we continue to do the same things. As someone once said, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a

different result!”

If you examine the above examples of progressive investing in hydrogenproducing systems, it should become clear that a small-time long-term investor could enter the market and muddy the water for our Social Security investor consortium once the hydrogen infrastructure is in place. By so doing they would be taking advantage of the upfront subsidies and low-cost mass production facilities that were paid by the Social Security investors when establishing the hydrogen infrastructure. Because this would have a direct impact upon the expected results from the Social Security plan, it would behoove the government to create a law that prevents it from happening. In this case, we would be protecting a monopoly rather than preventing one. Although this sounds like an anti-capitalistic law, keep in mind that it is intended to keep the Social Security system solvent and self-sustaining. Besides, there is plenty of money to be made by private companies that provide equipment and services for the consortium.

One final note before we go further. When I use the term 100 percent of today’s transportation fuel consumption in the United States, some people might criticize my assumption by saying that future fuel consumption will be less than it is today. They will say that people will conserve more fuel in the future by driving less and using public transportation. They will also claim that future vehicles will be more efficient and use less fuel per mile driven. My response is this. If future vehicles use low-cost hydrogen fuel that does not pollute the environment (i. e. hydrogen made from water using nuclear and renewable energy), they will drive more miles than they do today. In addition, the US population is growing and there will be more drivers. If I am wrong about this, we will export our excess hydrogen production to an exponentially increasing world population that is exponentially increasing its fuel consumption.

Chapter 15

Energy Pathways

This cartoon is intended to remind you of what was stated in the opening chapter of this book with regard to eventually running out of natural gas. In spite of what you may have come to believe, we don’t have a 100-years supply of natural gas, especially if all transportation vehicles use it for fuel, including natural gas power plants that provide electricity for battery-powered vehicles. To emphasize my point, I will restate what I have already said about running out of natural gas.

Since the United States currently consumes about 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, this amount contributes only about 20 percent of our energy consumption. If 100 percent of our energy consumption came from natural gas, it would take about three years to deplete our known reserves and about twenty years to deplete the estimated 2,100 trillion cubic feet of unknown reserves—and that doesn’t include increased consumption due to population growth. So if we retrofit our coal fired power plants with natural gas, convert all transportation vehicles to use natural gas, and shut down nuclear power (as some have advocated), the best that we can do is about twenty years. Since Russia and the Middle East currently own 73 percent of the known reserves, my opinion is that in time the United States would again become dependent on imported fuel—in this case, expensive imported liquefied natural gas. To be fair in this assessment, we could begin using coal, with all of its pollution aspects, to make a synthetic gas product that could extend our fuel supply longer. With these facts in mind, let’s plan on making hydrogen from water!

Needless to say, large scale use of fission nuclear to convert water into liquefied hydrogen is going to be a hard sell, and the antinuclear forces currently have a strong influence on whether or not we are going to take this path. However, the antinuclear stance is a two-edged sword. On one hand, these are the same people who fear man-made global warming, while, on the other hand, they also fear the nuclear power with its potential for a meltdown and the fact that it produces radioactive waste. Even though nuclear power and hydrogen made from water can solve their global warming concerns, they tend to believe that wind and solar will get the job done. But here again, they face a dilemma. The dilemma is that wind and solar power requires so much land that for the amount of power

needed, it would be impractical, especially when we need all the available land that we can get to grow food to feed an exponentially growing world population.

To some extent, the “antinukes” do not understand the arithmetic or they just don’t care as long as they get their way. Hopefully, the majority of people will have the last word, especially when they see their energy costs going through the roof. Unfortunately, the majority of people are currently sitting on the sidelines, while “antinuke” and “green” activists are busily trying to undermine the economics of nuclear power and promote renewable energy. While I am probably not going to change their minds, I do have compromise solutions as discussed in the previous chapters of this book. My only request is that the “antinuke” and “green” activists, who I believe have a noble but misguided cause come to the conclusion that fission nuclear power is needed now, and that eventually, we will have fusion nuclear to take its place. In other words, because of my compromise solutions, they may stop obstructing the advancement of nuclear power. Here is what I mean by obstruction.

Have you ever heard of the $500 hammer that was purchased by our government? Many people think that this was private business “ripping-off” the government. Others, like me, think that a hammer could actually cost almost $500 if it is over-specified. If a normal mass-produced hammer might cost $2 to make, what if it was required to a dimensional specification to within plus or minus 0.00001 inches? What if the material had to be ultrasonically inspected to assure that there was no porosity in the hammer head in excess of 0.0001 inch in diameter? What if the surface finish and packaging had to meet additional stringent requirements? Do you see where I am going with this? Well, if your intension is to cause a product price to be so high that nobody would buy it, you might try to specify or regulate it out of existence. With that being said, it is also not inconceivable that private enterprise will take advantage of government ignorance, indifference, and cronyism and charge whatever the government is willing to pay. Since the government is not interested in making a profit to insure its survival, it is capable of doing things that are inconceivable to the average person that is trying to make ends meet.

I believe that the nuclear power industry is being held back because of overregulation and licensing requirements that make it cost so much that electric utility companies won’t buy it. To me, it is the above mentioned antinuclear and pro renewable energy mind-set that is causing nuclear plant cost estimates to be so high. If you want to know the facts about nuclear power and the basis for its high cost, please refer to http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower. What you will find is that if nuclear power plants were standardized, the cost of construction could be considerably less than $2,000 per kilowatt-hour and the fuel cost over the forty-year design life of the reactor could be half that amount. In other words, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant could cost $2 billion to build and $1 billion in fuel cost over forty years (for your information, current nuclear fuel costs significantly less than coal or natural gas). In forty years of operation at a capacity factor of 90 percent, the cost per kilowatt-hour would be $0.0095. However, according to the above reference, we need to add $0.002 per kilowatt-hour for operating costs, and another $0.0009 for decommissioning and waste disposal costs. When we make these additions, the cost of electricity should be $0.0124 per kilowatt-hour. However, when you refer to www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants.aspx, you find that numerous worldwide studies showing nuclear power costing about $0.06 per kilowatt-hour. What is wrong with this picture? Well, what you find is that the plant construction license, the operating license, the cost of borrowed money, time delays, and unrealistic estimates of waste disposal costs make up the difference. Here, we find why the hammer costs $500 and nuclear power cost $0.06 per kilowatt-hour! In my opinion, it is an antinuclear government bias that is trying to regulate nuclear power to extinction.

As you know by now, I am recommending that we mass-produce standardized modular nuclear power plants—like those used for the navy’s nuclear ships and pay for them as we go (i.e. no interest charges on borrowed money). When a modular reactor is shut down for refueling or repairs, it will have an almost insignificant effect on the total amount of energy being produced and thus allowing the reactors to have an almost 100 percent capacity factor, rather than 90 percent for large, base-loaded reactors. Because of mass production, I would expect the construction costs to be considerably below $2,000 per kilowatt. To be specific, I will assume that we can generate electricity at about $0.01 per kilowatt-hour over a forty-year plant lifetime. So now that you know where I am

coming from on this matter, let’s discuss the various alternatives to making hydrogen from water.

By the way, if nuclear power is not part of the hydrogen future, the idea of making it from water may never come to and the US supply of natural gas could be used up very quickly. Being optimistic ing solar s, the land area required would cover the entire state of New Mexico. And if you are globalist, there would not enough available land or surrounding ocean in the British Isles to produce enough water-based hydrogen for their needs. We will need nuclear power—make no mistake about it.

In the last few chapters, I discussed the various paths that we could take in building our hydrogen from water infrastructure. Now let’s examine the economics of each one so that we can make some decisions. The table below is an evaluation of each of the options.

Energy source $ Energy $ To Create 1 Kg H2

Equipment $

Total $

Land Area

To Create 1 Kg H2

To Create 1 Kg H2

Square Miles

Coal plant electrolysis 0.7 at $0.01 per kilowatt Natural gas plant electrolysis 0.7 at $0.01 per kilowatt Conventional nuclear electrolysis 0.7 at $0.01 per kilowatt Jet-stream electrolysis 0.14 at $0.002per kilowatt 12 megawatt wind electrolysis 0.21 at $0.003 per kilowatt Breeder thermo-chemical 0.58 at $0.012 per kilowatt Solar photovoltaics electrolysis $0.77 at $0.011 per kilowatt

$0.20

$0.90

1,636

$0.20

$0.90

1,636

$0.20

$0.90

1,636

$0.20

$0.34

9,087

$0.80

$1.01

113,583

$0.05

$0.63

1,145

$1.20

$1.97

123,909

As shown, each system has been equalized with a forty-year life expectancy. Although current wind and solar systems are rated for only twenty years of life, I see no reason why they could not be extended to forty years with proper materials selection and maintenance. The coal, natural gas, and nuclear systems have also been equalized at $0.01 per kilowatt. Although nuclear plant costs are higher, the reduced price of nuclear fuel relative to coal and natural gas makes the total lifetime cost for each system about the same. Because land area is a significant concern for renewable energy sources, I have assumed an area of 1.2 square miles for conventional sources as a reference. Because wind turbines generally have a 25 percent capacity factor in a class 4 to 5 wind zone, the hydrogen electrolysis and cryogenic equipment needs to be sized for the rated output, which means an increased cost of about 4 times. The wind turbine cost is based upon using the 12-megawatt version at an installed price of $810 per kilowatt and having 12 installed megawatts per square mile. The solar cost is based upon $220 per kilowatt and having 8 megawatts installed per square mile. Because solar s generally have a 15 percent capacity factor, the hydrogen electrolysis and cryogenic equipment needs to be sized for the rated output which means an increased cost of about six times. The Jet-stream and breeder thermo-chemical costs reflect the analysis shown in previous chapters of this book.

So what does the table tell us? The first thing to notice is that conventional and nuclear power plants can produce liquefied hydrogen from water at the very reasonable price of $0.90 per kilogram. They consume a very reasonable amount of land area and can be placed in almost any available location in the country. The next thing to notice is that the Jet-stream version produces liquefied hydrogen at almost one third the price of conventional power plants and also consumes a reasonable amount of land and air space for the production of 100 percent of the total US transportation fuel requirement. The breeder thermochemical system has a slight cost and land space advantage over the conventional systems but has the additional advantage of extending the nuclear fuel supply. While the wind and solar systems could eventually produce power at the lowest cost, their capacity factors cause the hydrogen production equipment costs to go up significantly. Moreover, the problem of land area in remote locations becomes a significant issue when implemented on this scale, as

mentioned above, about the size of New Mexico for a 100 percent advanced solar system. I believe that the 12-megawatt wind turbine costs are very achievable, but the solar s have a long way to go from where they are today; even though, I have assumed a solar cost that is four times less than current values and an efficiency that is twice that of current values.

With all the above being said, let’s examine how combining the renewable energy systems with nuclear power works out.

Energy source

Energy $ Equipment $ Total $ To Create To Create

To Create

1 Kg H2 1 Kg H2

1 Kg H2

$0.70

$0.20

$0.90

Breeder thermo-chemical (70%)

$0.58

$0.05

$0.63

OTEC/nuclear (6%)

$0.70

$0.20

$0.90

Nuclear/12-megawatt

$0.49

$0.20

$0.69

$0.56

$0.27

$0.83

Conventional nuclear (reference case)

wind combo (12%) (48 mw’s per square mile nuclear) (48 mw’s per square mile max wind) (75% nuclear capacity factor) (25% wind capacity factor) Nuclear/12-megawatt wind/ solar combo (12%) (48 mw’s per square mile nuclear)

(48 mw’s per square mile wind) (48 mw’s per square mile solar) (50% nuclear capacity factor) (25% wind capacity factor) (15% solar capacity factor & 30% efficiency)

Total cost including equipment, fuel, and operations = $4.60 trillion

Notice in this table that I have made one of many possible choices with regard to the percentage of each system to be deployed in a 100 percent hydrogen production plan. As shown, each system, except OTEC/nuclear, is less expensive than the referenced conventional nuclear power and the total amount of land space required is not unreasonable—only 6 percent of the state of New Mexico. Even though the least expensive method is the breeder thermo-chemical system, the 12-megawatt wind/nuclear system comes in at a close second. The addition of solar s in a southern energy park offers the advantage of mass-producing solar s for other applications that I will discuss later. The solar addition also reduces land area when compared to the nuclear and wind only option. I retained the OTEC/nuclear system because it can be located near populated areas along the east and west coasts of the United States which will reduce hydrogen delivery costs which haven’t been considered in the analysis. Also, because an ocean-based system can be located in many deep international waters throughout the world, it can provide locally produced hydrogen to many world markets.

Obviously, the question could be asked: why not produce all liquefied hydrogen using the breeder thermo-chemical method since it appears to be the least expensive way to go? As previously mentioned, my simple answer is that we shouldn’t put all of our eggs in one basket, and when all the costs are actually tallied, it may not be the best choice. One significant factor is the price of hydrogen-producing equipment which when mass-produced might be much less costly than what I have projected, thus making the wind and solar multiplier much less of a concern. Let’s keep our options open.

I haven’t included the Jet-stream concept as part of my selection for previously stated reasons; however, I do recommend that this idea be developed as part of an overall plan. If it can potentially produce liquefied hydrogen for half the cost of the breeder system, it needs serious consideration, and, like the OTEC system, it can be located in many locations around the world, including populated inland regions.

Chapter 16

Plan A

The simplest and most straight forward plan for producing hydrogen to replace 100 percent of the transportation fuel used by the United States is to reform natural gas. The natural gas reforming ideas described in Chapter 3 can get us to about 12 percent of United States hydrogen usage in ten years, and that is what I propose doing. However, in the long run, we need to establish economical ways of making all hydrogen from water, and that is what Plan A is intended to do. If more natural gas is discovered in the next ten years, the plan can be altered to accommodate new information.

Although my plan could be focused only on the forty-year goal of replacing 100 percent of our transportation fuel with hydrogen, it seemed appropriate to include some other objectives that could be discarded by the hydrogen consortium. In many respects, my proposed plan could be considered too comprehensive, but as you will see, it has lots of side benefits that can be funded by progressive investing.

Up to this point in your reading, I have set the stage so that my proposals can be understood. You know, by now, that fossil fuels will not last forever and that we will need alternative sources of energy. You probably also know that if we want to free the United States from oil imports in ten years, we need to drill for oil to the extent possible until hydrogen is in widespread use. You have reviewed the various forms of renewable energy and some ideas that could actually make them viable and competitive with fossil fuels. You must know, by now, that nuclear power and breeder reactors need to be part of our energy future— renewable energy alone just won’t get us to where we need to be. You were probably surprised to learn that depleting water from the Ogallala Aquifer cannot be sustained indefinitely and that the solution could be tied to a plan that converts water into hydrogen. You learned about a proposed method of diverting fresh water from water-rich locations in the United States to water-poor locations like the Mojave and Sonora Deserts and make valuable cropland—a la the Coachella Valley—that can help to feed the world while, at the same time, ing the hydrogen from water processes. You were probably not aware that because of hydrogen’s lightweight, it would be much less expensive to

transport bulk hydrogen using large-scale zeppelins rather than pipelines, and that large—and small-scale zeppelins could have many “spin-off” benefits.

If there is a “mandate” from the citizens of the United States to do so, here is my proposed plan A:

Assuming that the citizens of the United States understand and the conversion to hydrogen and that the ultimate goal is to use hydrogen derived from water, I propose 5 bridge programs during the first ten years to begin the process. These bridge programs are intended to free the United States from its dependence upon imported oil and that all hydrogen is produced using natural gas reformers.

The first ten-year “bridge” program involves conservation and fuel efficiency. Without getting into a lot of detail, I am proposing that United States citizens participate in a gallon per week savings plan and that they purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. As you can see, I estimate that this can result in a 20 percent decrease in oil imports—a significant impact but not enough. The second and more controversial ten-year “bridge” program involves drilling for domestic oil. This could result in a 55 percent decrease in oil imports. See the descriptions below:

Bridge Program 1

(Citizen participation in fuel conservation)

• A 50% participation in a “save a gallon per week” program will save about 6% of oil imports.

• A ten-year phase in program of gasoline fuel-efficient vehicles will save about 14% of imported oil.

Bridge Program 2

(Drill for more oil and natural gas)

• Drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), in coastal waters, and on federally owned land will save an estimated 55% of imported oil in ten years.

The third “bridge” program involves reforming hydrogen from natural gas as described below:

Bridge Program 3

(Reform hydrogen from natural gas)

• Set up natural gas to hydrogen reformation facilities at 100,000 service stations around the country—enough to fuel about 50 vehicles per day—at each station —with pressurized hydrogen gas.

• Construct one thousand natural gas to hydrogen reformation plants near existing natural gas power plant sites.

The fourth “bridge” program provides incentives for automobile and truck owners to use hydrogen fuel as described below:

Bridge Program 4

(Provide incentives to use hydrogen fuel)

• Retrofit hydrogen fuel tanks into the trunks of 15 million US automobiles. The primary incentive for home to work automobile owners will be lower fuel prices.

• Provide incentives for automobile manufactures to produce hydrogen-fueled vehicles and for consumers to take advantage of lower fuel prices—20 million US enger vehicles.

• Retrofit 20 percent of US diesel trucks and tractor trailers with hydrogen fuel tanks. Using a 60 percent hydrogen and 40 percent diesel fuel blend. The primary incentive to owners will also be lower fuel prices.

• These steps will save about 25 percent of imported oil in ten years.

The fifth “bridge” program lays the groundwork for an infrastructure where

hydrogen is eventually made from water.

Bridge Program 5

(Begin hydrogen from water infrastructure)

• Begin construction of 15 thousand cubic feet per second aqueduct/pipeline from the Missouri River to the Sonora and Mojave Deserts.

• Prepare sites for renewable/nuclear energy parks.

• Prepare sites for the thermo-chemical phase of the program.

• Begin developing prototype demonstrations of the various alternative energy sources.

• Begin construction of a small-scale zeppelin factory.

By the twentieth year, about 35 percent of the total number of transportation vehicles will use hydrogen fuel. 20 percent of the hydrogen will be derived from natural gas while 15 percent will be derived from electrolysis of water.

By the fortieth year, nearly 100 percent of the total number of transportation vehicles will use hydrogen fuel. 25 percent will be derived from natural gas, 30 percent from the electrolysis of water, and 45 percent derived from the nuclear thermo-chemical process.

The following outline summarizes what the forty-year program will accomplish:

The First Ten Years

• The United States will no longer be dependent on imported oil.

• Hydrogen will constitute about 12 % of United States transportation fuel consumption.

• 15 million retrofit dual fuel tank vehicles will run on hydrogen derived from natural gas.

• 20 million new hydrogen-fueled vehicles will run on hydrogen derived from natural gas.

• 3 million trucks and tractor-trailers will run on a 60/40 percent blend of hydrogen and diesel fuel derived from natural gas.

• One hundred thousand small-scale natural gas to hydrogen-processing and

dispensing units will be located at service stations.

• One thousand large-scale centralized natural gas to hydrogen reformation and liquefaction facilities will be completed.

• 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear prototype completed.

• Planning and development in of the nuclear thermo-chemical process will be completed—demo plant completed.

• Planning and development in of the nuclear/OTEC system will be completed—demo plant completed.

• Small-scale 75-thousand-pound lift capability zeppelin prototype developed.

• The first stage of the water pipeline/aqueduct will be initiated.

The Second Ten Years

• Almost all 190 thousand gas stations in the United States will dispense hydrogen fuel (an oil company investment) liquefied hydrogen will be produced at centralized hydrogen-processing centers.

• Hydrogen will constitute 35 % of United States transportation fuel consumption.

• 20 % hydrogen fuel consumption will be derived from reformed natural gas— 12 % from 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear combos—3 % from OTEC/nuclear.

• Two thousand additional large-scale centralized natural gas to hydrogen reformation and liquefaction facilities will be completed.

• Four 50 x 20 mile 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear and pipelines will be installed.

• Fifty-eight 700-megawatt OTEC/nuclear and ing hydrogen tankers ships will be constructed.

• A small-scale zeppelin factory (100 per year—75 thousand pound lift capability) will be completed.

• The first stage of the water pipeline/aqueduct will be completed and provide water to the energy parks and to begin development of the Sonora and Mojave Deserts.

• A modular nuclear thermo-chemical hydrogen prototype will be demonstrated.

• A Jet-stream prototype will be demonstrated.

Here are the progressive investments in ten-year increments:

The first ten years:

Year

Investment

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

1

$40,000,000,000 $5,130,000,000

1%

-$34,870,000,000

2

$40,000,000,000 $10,260,000,000 2%

-$29,740,000,000

3

$40,000,000,000 $15,390,000,000 3%

-$24,610,000,000

4

$40,000,000,000 $20,520,000,000 4%

-$19,480,000,000

5

$40,000,000,000 $25,650,000,000 5%

-$14,350,000,000

6

$40,000,000,000 $30,780,000,000 6%

-$9,220,000,000

7

$40,000,000,000 $35,910,000,000 7%

-$4,090,000,000

8

$40,000,000,000 $41,040,000,000 8%

$1,040,000,000

9

$60,000,000,000 $51,300,000,000 10%

-$8,700,000,000

10

$70,000,000,000 $61,560,000,000 12%

-$8,440,000,000

Total

$450 Billion -$150 Billion

Notice that even though $450 billion has been invested, only $150 billion has been spent. This is because of accumulating profits from hydrogen sales at $3.00 per kilogram. This income offsets the monies needed for reinvestment. Also notice that the total investment when spread out over 50 million investors is only $3,000 each. While some investors won’t like the idea of subsidizing hydrogenfueled cars and trucks, keep in mind that most of these subsidies are paid from the sale of hydrogen.

Now let’s examine what happens during the second ten years:

The second ten years:

Year

Investment

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

11

$70,000,000,000

$71,820,000,000

14%

$1,820,000,000

12

$70,000,000,000

$82,080,000,000

16%

$12,080,000,000

13

$80,000,000,000

$92,340,000,000

18%

$12,340,000,000

14

$80,000,000,000

$102,600,000,000 20%

$22,600,000,000

15

$95,000,000,000

$112,860,000,000 22%

$17,860,000,000

16

$100,000,000,000 $123,120,000,000 24%

$23,120,000,000

17

$105,000,000,000 $133,380,000,000 26%

$28,380,000,000

18

$125,000,000,000 $143,640,000,000 28%

$18,640,000,000

19

$125,000,000,000 $159,030,000,000 31%

$34,030,000,000

20

$125,000,000,000 $179,550,000,000 35%

$54,550,000,000

Total*

$975 Billion $ 225 Billion

*Accumulated

During this second ten years, the sale of hydrogen continues to take care of investments while at the same time providing a net income.

Now let’s look at where we are graphically:

(35% U.S. hydrogen production in 20 years)

Notice the distribution of hydrogen-producing resources. At the end of twenty years, natural gas will still be the major contributor at 20 percent, while hydrogen made from water is starting to make its presence known at 15 percent. The first pipeline from the Missouri river to the Sonora and Mojave Deserts has been constructed to supply water for the existing hydrogen from water to hydrogen facilities and prepare for the thermo-chemical plant construction.

Also notice how hydrogen pipelines are used to distribute the hydrogen (produced by the electrolysis of water) to populated areas. Hydrogen tanker ships are also used to pick up and deliver liquefied hydrogen from the OTEC/nuclear platforms. We can use large-scale zeppelins to deliver liquefied hydrogen if deemed appropriate, but for now, I will assume that we will continue with pipelines.

Now let’s look at the next twenty years:

The Third Ten Years

• Hydrogen will constitute 55 % of United States transportation fuel consumption.

• 25 % hydrogen fuel consumption will be from reformed natural gas—24 % from 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear combos—6 % from OTEC/nuclear.

• One thousand additional large-scale centralized natural gas to hydrogen reformation and liquefaction facilities will be completed.

• Four additional 50 x 20 mile 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear and pipelines will be installed.

• Fifty-eight 700-megawatt OTEC/nuclear and ing hydrogen tankers will be constructed.

• Small-scale zeppelins will aid in the construction of energy parks and transport liquefied hydrogen (large-scale zeppelins are not considered in this scenario).

• The pipeline/aqueduct will replenish 30% of the Ogallala Aquifer depletion and help develop Coachella Valley-type regions in the Sonora and Mojave Deserts.

• 9 modular nuclear thermo-chemical hydrogen-processing zones will be completed.

The Fourth Ten Years

• Hydrogen will constitute 100 % of United States transportation fuel consumption.

• 25 % hydrogen fuel consumption will be from reformed natural gas—24 % from 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear combos—6 % from OTEC/nuclear—45 % from thermo-chemical.

• 1,000 small-scale zeppelins will aid in the construction of energy parks and transport liquefied hydrogen.

• The pipeline/aqueduct will replenish 30% of the Ogallala Aquifer depletion and help develop 30 Coachella Valley-type regions in the Sonora and Mojave Deserts.

• 440 additional nuclear thermo-chemical hydrogen-processing zones will be completed.

Here are the progressive investments over this twenty-year time frame:

Year

Investment

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

21

$125,000,000,000 $189,810,000,000 37%

$64,810,000,000

22

$125,000,000,000 $200,070,000,000 39%

$75,070,000,000

23

$125,000,000,000 $210,330,000,000 41%

$85,330,000,000

24

$125,000,000,000 $220,590,000,000 43%

$95,590,000,000

25

$130,000,000,000 $230,850,000,000 45%

$100,850,000,000

26

$130,000,000,000 $241,110,000,000 47%

$111,110,000,000

27

$130,000,000,000 $251,370,000,000 49%

$121,370,000,000

28

$130,000,000,000 $261,630,000,000 51%

$131,630,000,000

29

$130,000,000,000 $271,890,000,000 53%

$141,890,000,000

30

$130,000,000,000 $282,150,000,000 55%

$152,150,000,000

31

$130,000,000,000 $297,540,000,000 58%

$167,540,000,000

32

$135,000,000,000 $312,930,000,000 61%

$177,930,000,000

33

$145,000,000,000 $333,450,000,000 65%

$188,450,000,000

34

$155,000,000,000 $359,100,000,000 70%

$204,100,000,000

35

$165,000,000,000 $384,750,000,000 75%

$219,750,000,000

36

$175,000,000,000 $410,400,000,000 80%

$235,400,000,000

Year

Investment

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

37

$250,000,000,000 $436,050,000,000 85%

$186,050,000,000

38

$250,000,000,000 $461,700,000,000 90%

$211,700,000,000

39

$250,000,000,000 $487,350,000,000 95%

$237,350,000,000

40 Total*

$270,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100% $1,925 Billion

$243,000,000,000 $ 2,070 Billion

*Accumulated

Here we can see the long-term benefits of continuing the program. While our accumulated investments have increased to $1,925 billion, our accumulated net profit has increased to $2,070 billion.

Now let’s again look graphically at where we will be at the end of forty years:

(100% U.S. hydrogen production in 40 years)

While we still have 25 percent of hydrogen being derived from natural gas, the equipment is aging and will be replaced by hydrogen from water systems over the next twenty years.

Assuming that we don’t increase hydrogen production over the next twenty years, here is what our progressive investments and net profits look like.

Year

Investment

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

41

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

41

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

42

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

43

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

44

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

45

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

46

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

47

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

48

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

49

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

50

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

51

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

52

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

53

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

54

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

55

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

56

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

57

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

58

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

59

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

60

$150,000,000,000 $513,000,000,000 100%

$363,000,000,000

Total*

$3,150 Billion $ 7,620 Billion

*Accumulated

So by just maintaining and replacing existing equipment, we will continue to invest but look at the accumulated net profit! More than 7 trillion dollars could be accumulated over a 60-year time frame, and this doesn’t include reinvesting money at a compound interest rate, and if we take inflation into , these numbers would be much higher.

In summary, lowering the first ten-year investment minimizes the amount of money required from the Social Security investors and allows time for the program to build up and become self-sustaining. During this initial ten-year time frame, Social Security investors will contract to build the natural gas to hydrogen-processing and distribution facilities, and subsidize the introduction of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. When the program becomes self-sustaining, the amount of invested money is increased until the fortieth year when almost all vehicles use hydrogen fuel. After the fortieth year, natural gas reformation will be gradually phased out and replaced by the most economical system that derives hydrogen from water—I have assumed the thermo-chemical system.

Needless to say, there will be many side benefits from this plan. The partial water pipeline/aqueduct will help to replenish the Ogallala Aquifer and create opportunities for developing the Sonora and Mojave Deserts while at the same time supplying water to make hydrogen and cool the thermo-chemical plant reactor systems.

While I haven’t used the previously discussed large-scale zeppelins to pick up and deliver hydrogen, a decision could be made later to save money and provide a long-distance delivery capability using this method. I have, however, saved money by using small-scale zeppelins to assist in creating the 12-megawatt wind turbine/nuclear energy parks.

There are a number of additional side benefits that can be derived from the plan that I will discuss later, like the addition of solar and/or nonconventional geothermal systems that could go a long way toward helping many of the world’s underdeveloped countries. Incorporation of solar, nonconventional geothermal, Jet-stream power generation, and large-scale zeppelins might make economic and practical sense as the plan progresses.

Now let’s discuss a more aggressive plan—Plan B.

Chapter 17

Plan B

If I had my druthers, I would have proposed a more ambitious and aggressive hydrogen plan that could produce about 75 percent of our nation’s transportation fuel in twenty years and 200 percent in forty years. The rate of progression will be based upon the actions taken by the Social Security investors. In any event I would start with the same first ten-year plan described for Plan A. This minimizes the amount of up-front investment required and allows time to evaluate the various options.

Instead of going through this more aggressive plan in detail, I will begin by graphically describing how it might look at the end of forty years:

Proposed Grand Canal Project (200% U.S. hydrogen production in 40 years)

Not only does this more aggressive plan provide 200 percent of United States hydrogen production, it also includes a “Grand Canal” that can provide additional water needed for hydrogen production, completely replenish the Ogallala Aquifer, and completely develop the Sonora and Mojave Deserts. With 200 percent hydrogen production, large-scale zeppelins will probably be needed since we will need a practical and economic way of exporting the excess hydrogen to other countries.

The full-scale “Grand Canal” is really not required for the aggressive plan—Plan B, but it does have some other obvious benefits, and in this case, perhaps the government might want to pay for it. So instead of going through the details of how the aggressive plan works, I will elaborate on the “Grand Canal.”

Since the amount of water that can be drained from the Missouri River is limited and not capable of completely replenishing each year’s depletion of the Ogallala’s underground water or fully developing the Sonora and Mojave Deserts, it needs another source. Before getting into the specifics of what that source of additional water might be, let’s ask the question: is it worth having our government spend $25 billion per year for twenty years to make it happen? Perhaps, we can reduce the water depletion rate from the Ogallala by drip watering the crops in the High Plains “breadbasket” area, but it seems unlikely that this will be enough.

If we did go for the more ambitious “Grand Canal” plan, let’s do some arithmetic. Let’s assume seventy additional 110-square-mile Coachella Valley crop growing areas. This will result in a gross yearly income of about $8,000 per acre or about $40 billion per year. In addition, wouldn’t the land value increase significantly as people, especially retirees, move into this area for the climate and scenery? Now, let’s add the sale of 3 trillion gallons of water per year at $0.006 per gallon. This would result in sales of about $18 billion per year.

While I am not enamored with the idea of the government selling land or water, it could be done to recover its expenditures. Assuming that 10,000 square miles, or 6.4 million acres, could be sold for the modest price of $20,000 per acre, the income would be $120 billion. In addition, the annual sale of water would yield $18 billion per year.

What I am getting at is having the United States government pay for the construction of the expanded “Grand Canal” could result in a long-term revenue stream while at the same time solving the Ogallala Aquifer water depletion problem. It could also demonstrate what other governments around the world could do to save aquifers, develop crop producing land, and generate a profit.

My plan would be to have half of the “Grand Canal” completed in ten years, but the first part would comprise 80 percent of the required flow rate, whereas the second ten year part would provide the additional 20 percent. Therefore, the rate of payback would cover a significant part of the second ten years of expenditures from the sale of water and land. Again, let’s do some arithmetic. $25 billion per year for twenty years is $500 billion. $14 billion per year from the sale of water during the second ten years is $140 billion and with $120 billion coming from the sale of land totals $260 billion which would still leave a shortfall of $240 billion. When the project is finished, the sale of water and additional land will eventually make up the difference and the government’s investment would be paid back. In addition, the developed cropland will generate additional tax revenue.

During the first ten years in which there is almost no return on investment, the government could employ people who are receiving unemployment checks but would rather work for a significant pay increase—how about the equivalent of $200,000 per year which includes 25 percent in benefits. Revenues needed to fund the project would come in part from reduced unemployment benefits and taxes paid by the new highly paid workers. If the project is properly executed, without fraud or abuse, it could generate economic growth and additional tax revenue. This is not much different than the government sponsored construction

of Hoover Dam or Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and the Works Project istration (WPA). In the longer run, continuing income to the government, from the sale of water and land, would help pay for programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net expenses.

So why should the “Grand Canal” project be a government—tax payer funded— program? How about saving the Ogallala and preventing river overflow flooding for starters? Preserving the Ogallala could be considered a national defense issue, and preventing river overflow flooding would not only save lives and property, it would also save emergency relief money. And as mentioned from a long-term point of view, it will provide revenue for America’s social safety nets. Then how about providing long-term high-paying jobs for thousands of people and exporting food from the newly productive cropland? Here’s how I propose that it be done.

Since a 60 percent increase in water flow would be too much for the Missouri River to handle, how are we going to get this increased amount? How about Lake Superior? Since Lake Superior has experienced high water levels of about two feet during a spring thaw, the amount of water contained in the two feet of water level is nearly 13 trillion gallons. So by building a very large pipeline/aqueduct system between Lake Superior and the Missouri River, we can deliver more than the needed 60 percent. This is a very daunting task to say the least, but I believe that it can be done. But perhaps we need to begin about ten years after the start of the start of Plan A or B.

The northern leg of my proposed pipeline/aqueduct would be comprised of two 25-foot-diameter tunnels from Lake Superior to the Missouri River. Seven additional 20-foot-diameter concrete pipes would be needed to carry the water from the Missouri River to the Mojave Desert. The combined tunnel and pipeline/aqueduct can transport as much as 13 trillion gallons of water each year when you factor in the contribution from the Missouri River. Of the total of nine pipes emanating from the Missouri River, only seven would be required with two pipes being kept in reserve.

To make the initial almost 3,000-foot-elevation climb, from Lake Superior to the Missouri River, I envision a, yet to be determined, number of 14 thousand cubic feet per second pumping stations – patterned after the Chinese Grand Canal pumping station — that consume about 2,000 megawatts of pumping power. Waste heat from two 1,000-megawatt water-cooled fission reactors and imbedding electric heating rods, if necessary, will prevent winter freezing.

Although I haven’t worked out every detail, I envision a dam being built between Lake Superior and Lake Huron to hold the additional Lake Superior water that would form during the spring thaw. Since one of two 25-foot-diameter tunnels can transmit about 5 trillion gallons of water per year, an outage of one tunnel would still leave as much as 8 trillion gallons per year, when the Missouri River contribution is added. Although regulation of the Missouri’s flow rate could prevent downstream rivers from overflowing their banks, perhaps other downstream river crossings, like the Arkansas and Red Rivers, could be arranged in a similar way.

I realize that the 500-mile-long northern tunnel idea probably sounds a bit extreme to most people reading this book, but let me explain. It is patterned after the 32-mile-long Chunnel that connects England to . Beginning in 1988, the Chunnel took six years to build at a cost of $21 billion. There are two 25-foot train tunnels and a 16-foot service tunnel. At the peak of construction, there were as many as 15,000 people working on the project. My proposal requires two 25foot-diameter tunnels to be built in sixteen 30-mile-long segments and would take twenty years to complete. However, each 500-mile tunnel would be built in ten-year intervals. If we assume 5,000 workers for each segment (80,000 total) and paid a wage equivalent to $200,000 per year per worker, the cost per year would be $16 billion. Adding in excavating and tunnel building equipment, the average cost per year to build the tunnel system would be about $20 billion. Adding another $5 billion for increasing the size of the existing Plan A pipeline, the total cost per year would be about $25 billion. Since one half of the system would be completed in ten years, the profits would begin at that time.

If a young twenty-year-old worker would commit to working on the tunnel for five years, in this remote part of the country, he (or she) could accumulate a sizeable savings. In other words, if workers could save $125 thousand per year for five years, they could put $625 thousand in the bank—or better yet a CD. Compare this with a person paying $200 thousand to go to college and spending twenty years paying off a student loan. The twenty-year-old worker who accumulated $625 thousand in five years could buy a $300 thousand house for cash and not have a mortgage payment. The additional $325 thousand could be used for many other purposes, including investing in a CD at a compound interest rate of 3% over forty years which would provide a lump sum of $1.06 million at retirement.

So with the aggressive Plan B, here is what could be achieved:

1. Water depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer would be completely stopped, and 100 or more Coachella Valley towns could be developed in the Sonora and Mojave Desert areas, with a gross annual food crop value of about $50 billion. If we could supply 3 trillion gallons of water per year, at a sales price of $0.006 per gallon, a yearly income would be about $18 billion. Redirecting the flow of water from rivers into the pipeline/aqueduct could minimize or eliminate overflow flooding.

2. The 20-megawatt breeder and 600-megawatt VHTR reactors would be placed alongside a 100-mile-long by 2-mile-wide reservoir that would serve to regulate water flow to the Ogallala or Sonora/Mojave Deserts. The reservoir would also provide water for the production of hydrogen (5% of the water flow rate) and for cooling the reactors.

3. The nuclear/renewable land and ocean-based energy parks that produce hydrogen from the electrolysis of water would provide cost-effective hydrogen-

producing technology and equipment for nonnuclear countries.

4. Low-cost, large-scale zeppelins would be capable of transporting liquefied hydrogen from the nuclear-processing stations to distribution centers around the United States and to other locations around the world.

5. After the fortieth year, the natural gas production facilities will begin phasing out and water will become the primary source of all hydrogen produced.

6. Millions of long-lasting high-paying jobs will be created.

7. A new industry could be developed with the worldwide sale of large-scale zeppelins.

8. Because of a worldwide demand for transportation fuel and water, similar hydrogen production and pipeline/aqueduct systems could be constructed in other countries and the worldwide water and energy crisis could be solved!

9. Since water is a means by which croplands can be saved and even expanded, a la Coachella Valley, worldwide food starvation could be eliminated even with a growing population.

These ideas could definitely be categorized as out-of-the-box thinking. But this quote by George Bernard Shaw and later made famous by John F. Kennedy “Some people see things the way they are and say why. I dream of things that never were and say why not?”

Chapter 18

The Consortium

Social Security currently pays a yearly average of about $12,500 to about 58 million recipients which results in a grand total of about $725 billion. The beneficiaries are currently increasing at a rate of 1 million per year and the baby boomers will arrive in a few more years. Our older citizens are living longer and the number of workers entering the workforce is going down. By the year 2036, the Social Security Trust Fund assets will be depleted and about 2.8 workers will be needed to pay for one Social Security recipient. If continued on its current path, a twenty-five-year-old worker today will receive about 27 percent less in Social Security payments with a diminishing amount from that point forward, assuming no changes to the system. If in the next forty years, the demographics are such that there are 80 million recipients receiving an average of about $12,500 per year, in today’s dollars, a grand total of about $1,000 billion per year will be required.

As part of Plan A or B, workers up to age 50 will be allowed to voluntarily invest in a Social Security bonus program. In essence, the Social Security system will continue as it is, except that a bonus of up to $50 thousand (in current dollars) will be provided at age sixty-five to those who choose to make the $3,000 investment over a ten-year time frame.

For simplicity, I will assume that 50 million workers from ages twenty-five to fifty will decide to participate in the hydrogen program. If a worker decides to opt out, he (or she) can get back in by paying a fine based upon the delay. As new workers enter the workforce, they can also participate in the same way by investing $3,000 over a ten-year period, but the age of the new worker must be 25-years-old or pay a fine based upon the number of years delayed. For those who continue their education or have a legitimate circumstance beyond age twenty-five, an exemption can be made. For workers making a poverty wage, the United States government can provide a low interest loan that can be paid back at a later date. If the loan is not paid back, the worker will receive the retirement bonus based upon a percentage of the amount paid.

While thinking about the $3,000 investment that is in addition to the already burdensome payroll tax deduction, it may actually be too much for many people. Although the plan is voluntary, it is likely that most of the participants will turn out to be the most affluent. This need not be the case since the idea behind the Social Security system is to provide a safety net for those who can’t survive without having an income—and a bonus check of up to $50 thousand could go a long way toward enjoyment of their retirement years.

From my own experience, my mother lived on her Social Security check. Although it was a minimal amount, she was frugal enough to actually save some money. At times, she insisted that she take my wife and me out to dinner. As much as I objected, it was easier to just let her do what she wanted to do and pay her back in some other way. So I am well aware of how difficult it would be for many people to come up with the $3,000, even over the course of ten years. That’s $25 per month for ten years. For a person making $10 per hour, their monthly income is only about $1,600 per month less a bunch of taxes. After paying for rent, food, electricity, gasoline, clothing, and other essentials, there is not much left over, and it is these people who need the bonus money the most when they retire. So let’s be imaginative. First of all, there should be a predominance of low-income people participating in the bonus program, and this can be regulated by the consortium bylaws. Second, I suggest that the Social Security istration divert about 1 percent of their revenue for ten years toward this end; after all, they will get this money back when the program takes off. This would amount to about $7 billion per year for ten years. If we assume that this will apply to 20 million of the 50 million investors, there would be a $3 billion per year shortfall. It’s my opinion that every participant should contribute something even if it is only $10 per month. Another idea is to ask multimillionaires to voluntarily contribute to this worthy cause. Perhaps some moderately wealthy people who receive Social Security checks could allocate part of their monthly check since at least they would know how and why the money was being spent. In any event, let’s find creative ways to help the poor.

Now let’s figure out how we can minimize istrative costs. My proposal is to “piggyback” onto the Social Security program istration which is already in place. Investment contributions can be collected via a payroll tax add-on.

Once the money is collected, the Social Security istration can write a single monthly check to the consortium. The Social Security investors can make their investment contributions in a variety of ways, and one way is to have $25 added to their Social Security contribution each month for ten years. Another way would be to just write a check for $3,000 and be done with it. For minimum wage investors, I can imagine having a payroll tax add-on that ranges from $10 per month up to the required $25 per month depending upon their varying taxable income. As a result of this idea, it would not be necessary to set up a large bureaucracy of large expensive buildings with numerous employees in each city or town. We can’t afford creating an istrative bureaucracy where the employees of the bureaucracies do not create wealth.

One other aspect of the program is the fact that some of the contributors may die before reaching the age of sixty-five. In this case, the bonus money that they would have received can be given to their heirs. It would not be like the current Social Security payroll tax contributions which would not be ed on to their families.

With regard to the actual amount of money that would be paid in bonuses, the program adjusts for inflation. Therefore, it is not like buying a $3,000 certificate of deposit (a CD) which only pays an accumulated compound interest over the life of the investment. Instead, the selling price of hydrogen will be adjusted for inflation and the actual net profit in inflated dollars will increase over time. In other words, the expected bonus of $50 thousand could be increased significantly in actual but less valuable dollars. To put it another way, if $3,000 dollars was invested at 4 percent over forty years, it could be cashed in for about $14 thousand. However, if the inflation rate is 3 percent, the actual net gain in spending value would be only $4.5 thousand. With the hydrogen consortium plan, the 3 percent inflation rate would result in an equivalent cashed in amount of about $155 thousand rather than $50 thousand.

If we relook at the cash flow for Plan A , the first retirement age bonus payout of $12 thousand will begin in the sixteenth year. At that time, the accumulated net

income, without ing for inflation or yearly compound interest, will equal $67 billion. With an average of about 2 million participants retiring each year, this amount will more than pay for the $12 bonus. Each year, thereafter, the bonus amount will be increased in incremental amounts until the forty-first year where it will top out at $50 thousand. After the bonuses are paid, the remaining amount will be applied to all Social Security contributors by reducing their required payroll contributions.

Beginning in the forty-first year, the $50 thousand bonuses to 2 thousand new retirees will equal $100 billion, but the annual net income will be $363 billion. This means that $263 billion can be applied to reducing payroll contributions to the Social Security program. If there are 80 million recipients at that time, the amount available to each recipient would be about $3,300. This is much less than the presumed average of about $12,500, and as a result, it would only reduce payroll contributions by about 26 percent. This is not too bad, but it could be better.

Let’s see how the numbers work out for plan B, where at the end of forty years the United States is producing 200 percent of its hydrogen consumption rate and exporting liquefied hydrogen around the world by means of large-scale zeppelins. Let’s begin with the progressive investments over the first twenty years:

Year

Investment

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

1

$40,000,000,000

$5,130,000,000

1%

-$34,870,000,000

2

$40,000,000,000

$10,260,000,000 2%

-$29,740,000,000

3

$40,000,000,000

$15,390,000,000 3%

-$24,610,000,000

4

$40,000,000,000

$20,520,000,000 4%

-$19,480,000,000

5

$40,000,000,000

$25,650,000,000 5%

-$14,350,000,000

6

$40,000,000,000

$30,780,000,000 6%

-$9,220,000,000

7

$40,000,000,000

$35,910,000,000 7%

-$4,090,000,000

8

$40,000,000,000

$41,040,000,000 8%

$1,040,000,000

9

$60,000,000,000

$51,300,000,000 10%

-$8,700,000,000

10

$70,000,000,000

$61,560,000,000 12%

-$8,440,000,000

11

$80,000,000,000

$87,210,000,000 17%

$7,210,000,000

12

$100,000,000,000 $107,730,000,000 21%

$7,730,000,000

13

$120,000,000,000 $133,380,000,000 26%

$13,380,000,000

14

$140,000,000,000 $169,290,000,000 33%

$29,290,000,000

15

$165,000,000,000 $205,200,000,000 40%

$40,200,000,000

16

$200,000,000,000 $241,110,000,000 47%

$41,110,000,000

17

$240,000,000,000 $277,020,000,000 54%

$37,020,000,000

18

$280,000,000,000 $312,930,000,000 61%

$32,930,000,000

19

$320,000,000,000 $348,840,000,000 68%

$28,840,000,000

20

$370,000,000,000 $384,750,000,000 75%

$14,750,000,000

Total*

$2,465 Billion $100 Billion

*Accumulated

One thing to notice here is the net profit at the end of twenty years is less than with Plan A ($225 billion versus $100 billion). This is because the reinvestment amount is greater to permit building more hydrogen production facilities at a faster rate. Bonuses can still be paid like Plan A, but the payroll tax reduction is not as good. However, things get much better in the next twenty years—here’s how:

Year

Investment

21

Gross Income

%H2

Net Income

$370,000,000,000 $420,660,000,000

82%

$50,660,000,000

22

$450,000,000,000 $456,570,000,000

89%

$6,570,000,000

23

$450,000,000,000 $492,480,000,000

96%

$42,480,000,000

24

$450,000,000,000 $528,390,000,000

103%

$78,390,000,000

25

$450,000,000,000 $543,780,000,000

106%

$93,780,000,000

26

$450,000,000,000 $564,300,000,000

110%

$114,300,000,000

27

$450,000,000,000 $584,820,000,000

114%

$134,820,000,000

28

$450,000,000,000 $620,730,000,000

121%

$170,730,000,000

29

$450,000,000,000 $656,640,000,000

128%

$206,640,000,000

30

$450,000,000,000 $692,550,000,000

135%

$242,550,000,000

31

$500,000,000,000 $728,460,000,000

142%

$228,460,000,000

32

$500,000,000,000 $764,370,000,000

149%

$264,370,000,000

33

$500,000,000,000 $800,280,000,000

156%

$300,280,000,000

34

$500,000,000,000 $836,190,000,000

163%

$336,190,000,000

35

$500,000,000,000 $872,100,000,000

170%

$372,100,000,000

36

$500,000,000,000 $897,750,000,000

175%

$397,750,000,000

37

$500,000,000,000 $933,660,000,000

182%

$433,660,000,000

38

$500,000,000,000 $964,440,000,000

188%

$464,440,000,000

39

$500,000,000,000 $995,220,000,000

194%

$495,220,000,000

40

$500,000,000,000 $1,026,000,000,000 200%

$526,000,000,000

41

$300,000,000,000 $1,026,000,000,000 200%

$726,000,000,000

Total*

$12,185 Billion $5,785 Billion

*Accumulated

Using the same logic posed for Plan A, by the forty-first year, our annual net income would be $726 billion. Of the $726 billion, the $50 thousand bonuses would still for about $100 billion, thus leaving $626 billion to prop up the Social Security program. This amounts to about $7,800 per year per Social Security recipient (based upon 80 million recipients)—or 63 percent of the annual payout amount. With fewer contributors and many more recipients, it sure would be worth trying to achieve the more aggressive Plan B.

Since Plan A could also accomplish the aggressive result, over a longer term, we are now talking about 60 or more years from now, and world markets could preclude an early window of opportunity for exporting hydrogen fuel and hydrogen-producing equipment. After all, other countries would see what we were doing and set up their own hydrogen programs. My view is that an aggressive plan might result from the Social Security investors realizing that a greater benefit would come from an accelerated rate of introducing hydrogen vehicles. This is the beauty of free markets and the forces that drive them. It is also the beauty of having the producers comprising a large portion of the number of consumers.

I completely understand that the above analysis is very simplistic, but I don’t want to make it so complicated that nobody understands the concept. If there are risks associated with developing a hydrogen infrastructure, why would our Social Security investors do it? Well, the risk for 50 million Social Security investors is quite different. The major difference being that 50 million investors have a vested interest in the program being a success, because if it is not a success, they will have only themselves to blame when the size of their Social Security check is much less than their parents’. If the rest of the world decides to continue with gasoline or battery—powered vehicles, eventually, they will have to deal with the consequences of oil shortages and the inconvenience of long

recharge times and short driving ranges. Because of the way that the Plan A or B is structured, the program’s future doesn’t depend on the future price or availability of natural gas since in the long run, hydrogen would be made from nuclear power, renewable energy, and water.

Before ending this discussion, I need to mention something about who controls the Social Security investor consortium. Knowing that the government has spent Social Security contributions in the past as part of the general tax revenue, I wouldn’t trust that they will do a better job this time around. So here is my proposal.

1. Set up several private companies to control the money, possibly large banks like Wells Fargo. Each company or bank would be segregated by having a specific objective, like setting up small-scale hydrogen distribution facilities at service stations or 12-megawatt/nuclear energy parks. As the money comes in, it is invested in a short-term interest bearing . As expenditures are required, checks will be written. To oversee the process, we would need a CEO, and a board of directors who are elected by the Social Security investors. As the process continues, all investors will have instant real-time internet access to follow the overall process (money and progress) and an estimate of their future retirement bonus—this will provide an incentive to eliminate fraud and make the plan more aggressive. They can also vote via the internet rather than the cumbersome method used for government elections. Perhaps each Social Security investor can be given a modestly priced internet connection if they cannot afford one of their own. Let’s make this paperless.

2. Private United States companies will bid on each aspect of the program and contracts given to a number of competing companies based upon their bids and their ability to do the job. Each aspect of the program will have at least two competing companies. For example, the beginning four land-based energy parks and pipelines could be contracted with four competing companies for each aspect of the construction process.

3. As part of the process, time and expenditure incentives will be given to competing companies. If a substantial difference exists between companies doing almost identical jobs, the board of directors would reserve the right to fire incompetence.

4. If any company gets to a point where their progress would be substantially disrupted or delayed by having them stop work for incompetence or avoidable delays—the Social Security investors would be asked to vote on their disposition.

The above description of how the Social Security investors control the project and the flow of money is probably one of many different scenarios, but it is at least one proposal that can be put on the table for discussion. In any event, the program should not be controlled by the government. In fact, the Social Security investors will have a vote on how much money is returned to the government to shore up the Social Security program. I can also envision a number of possibilities where the investors make bad decisions because of greed and shortsightedness. However, because the Social Security investors would be so numerous and vary in age, background, and knowledge of the process, I believe that there will be a balance where greed and shortsightedness are offset, and the program will not get off course. If greed is their objective, then accelerating the introduction of hydrogen vehicles should be a common goal, and they can all have a direct impact on the result.

Having the Social Security investors controlling the hydrogen program makes more sense than having it controlled by private companies. With only a few private companies running a program of this magnitude can lead to too much control over the United States economy and the lives of too many people. While free market competition will serve to keep prices as low as possible, the fact that there would be redundancy, and reduced volume on the varied types of equipment used to make hydrogen, could result in higher costs to the consumer. After all, we are only making a single invariant commodity, hydrogen, and the only technological advancement that can be made is the efficiency and type of

equipment used in the process. In my opinion, a private company would not do much better in improved processing efficiency than the Social Security consortium. Since the Social Security investors would be both the suppliers and consumers, they will eliminate redundancy, get higher volume discounts on standardized equipment, invest in improving efficiencies, and prevent price gouging (no $500 hammers).

One last point, the United States government can the hydrogen program by funding basic research at National Laboratories, Universities, and private companies or individuals. If a breakthrough or better technology becomes available, its implementation could be evaluated by the consortium’s board of directors and voted on, via the internet, by the Social Security investors. It wouldn’t make sense for a forty-year program that starts out building Model T Fords to end its run by still building Model T Fords. It should be a dynamic process that continually makes course corrections along the way.

Chapter 19

Enriching the Impoverished

To me, the greatest problem facing planet Earth today is poverty, hunger, and disease. If we could eliminate the poverty problem, I believe that the potential problems of overpopulation, nuclear war, and economic chaos will be eliminated. Just imagine having all the world’s population living in the modern industrial age and having the economic and political freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the United States. Even the poorest of the poor in the United States have access to emergency medical services, and a government sponsored safety net for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves. Although, there is a wide range of income disparity, those at the top of the ladder provide directly and indirectly to help those at the bottom. And because it’s possible for some on the bottom rung to climb to the top, they provide an incentive of hope. It is this incentive that grows the economy, and when the economy grows, it provides jobs and income for those who would like to achieve a better standard of living. As the old saying goes “a rising tide lifts all boats.” In my opinion, while not perfect, the United States stands as the current best example of what humans can accomplish. In contrast, most of the world’s population is living in miserable conditions, without much chance of improvement. If we can provide this chance, if we can give them hope, I believe that the human spirit will rise to the occasion. I believe that they are craving the freedom and prosperity that they see every day. With television broadcasts, movie films, and the internet, everyone in the world is being exposed to how a better life might be, and their inner being wants it. In my opinion, when they have it, they will choose to have fewer children, and they won’t accept a repressive government whose objective is take away the spirit of freedom. Moreover, with more and more people demanding electric power, automobiles, modern appliances, and other goods and services that make for a better way of life, the world economy will grow and prosper.

I believe that the above cartoon says it all. With the about 20 percent of the world’s population currently consuming most the world’s nonrenewable natural resources, it is logical to assume that when, and if, the rest of the world catches up, there may not be enough to go around, especially when most of these resources are being thrown away.

Here are some facts (previously mentioned) that should give us cause for concern:

1. Half of the world’s almost 7.0 billion people live on less than the equivalent of two US dollars per day.

2. Farmers are abandoning about 27 thousand square miles of farmland each year because of lack of water and soil degradation.

3. The world’s fresh ground water is being consumed about 10 times faster than it is being replenished.

4. The world’s population will grow to about 9.2 billion people by the year 2050, the majority, of which, being in underdeveloped, non-industrialized countries.

5. The underdeveloped, non-industrialized countries are rapidly becoming industrialized and are consuming more and more of the world’s nonrenewable resources.

Having abundant and available energy and water is obviously a key ingredient in solving worldwide poverty, hunger, and despair, and low-cost hydrogen from water and “Grand Canals” provide a platform for making it happen.

In 1965 and 1966, I served with an army civil affairs team in Vietnam. When I saw the poverty of people who were living in villages and hamlets, I was appalled. When you see it firsthand, you quickly become thankful for growing

up in the good old US of A. I don’t think that many Americans realize how destitute most of the world’s population really is. My comion for these destitute people has caused me to invent solutions that might help. Generally speaking, it’s like starting a hydrogen infrastructure—a chicken and egg problem. The impoverished people can’t afford my proposed energy and water solutions, and without having energy and water, it will be difficult for them to move forward. With this dilemma in mind here is what might be done.

Economics 101

Let’s begin our discussion of how to help the impoverished by establishing a basic understanding of economics and growth. Years ago, famed economist Milton Friedman visited China and observed hundreds of workers building a road with shovels and pickaxes. When he asked the man in charge why they weren’t using modern-day equipment, the supervisor said that by using shovels, more workers could be employed. Friedman responded by asking, why not use spoons and employ even more workers? If you believe that spoons or shovels are a good way to keep people employed and eliminate poverty, think again.

If 100 workers earned $5 per day with shovels, then probably five workers could earn $100 per day if they used excavators and other types of modern-day earthmoving equipment. Moreover, the excavator workers could probably build the road 10 times faster. What this means is that the cost to build the road would be much less than the original budget, and the five workers could be paid as much as $300 per day or about $75,000 per year. But what about the ninety-five workers, won’t they be unemployed? Well, let’s have the five excavator workers employ them by having them build five houses and provide other goods and services. Since these high-paid excavator workers now have enough money to pay back an amortized loan, their money can be leveraged. If the house builders use modern tools and equipment, they can also earn a good wage since the faster they can build the house, the more money they can make. Since these house builders earn more money than they did when using shovels to build the road, they can buy more goods and services that require more people to be employed.

These newly employed people then buy houses, goods, and services that allow the ninety-five workers to continue working.

Let me explain what I have just said in of the original $500 per day that was used to build a 2-mile-long road. Let’s assume that whoever is paying for the road has enough money for 300 days of road construction. This would mean that $150,000 is available per year to build 2 miles of road. Because of building the road ten times faster, the 2 miles of roadway would cost ten times less. In fact, 20 miles of roadway could be built per year, rather than 2 miles. Because of the greater efficiency in building the road, the road buyer might negotiate paying three times as much for ten times as much roadway. If so, the excavator workers could be paid three times as much or $300 per day rather than $100. This would mean that each of the five excavator workers would receive $75,000 per year in wages. If each of the five workers then bought a $150,000 house, using mortgaged money, $750,000 would be available for house construction. If the houses were built in six months, using modern equipment, the ninety-five previously unemployed workers could each earn a $7,900. If additional homes were constructed for the remainder of the year, each homebuilder would earn $15,800—a far cry from the $1,500 they were earning as a shovel worker. When this process is done on a continuing basis, the economy grows and more people are able earn more money and buy more houses, goods, and services.

Although the above example is very simplistic because it ignores such things as equipment and materials cost, I think it makes the point about productivity and leveraging money. By being able to produce goods and services faster and cheaper though the use of modern-day equipment and automation, we increase employment rather than decrease it. When banks lend money, they allow more money to be spent. As a result, the money is leveraged to a higher short-term value and stimulates economic growth. If the 100 workers in the road building example continued to earn only $5 per day, or about $1,500 per year, they might be just able to buy enough food to survive. The idea of having them mortgage a house would be out of the question. But this is the circumstance that most of the people in the world find themselves today. We can do much better, but first, we need to be able to supply all the world’s population with cheap energy and water.

I need to say that the above example is more appropriate for non-industrialized countries where the people are starting at a poverty level. For industrialized countries, it is much more complicated, and economic growth is more dependent upon innovation and increasing the number of consumers. So by improving the economies of impoverished countries, the number of potential consumers increases dramatically, thereby helping the industrialized countries grow even more.

If the 2 percent per year increase in fuel consumption is any indication of current worldwide economic growth, I can imagine a United States automobile company making and selling basic low-cost cars in each impoverished country. Although the profits would be minimal for each car sold, there could be a lot of them sold. It’s the Henry Ford idea, of building a car that everyone can afford, and paying the car factory workers enough money so that they could afford to buy one.

The Chinese Economic Model

I watching a televised interview with Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric and arguably the greatest private business CEO of all time. When Jack was asked if China was an economic threat to the United States, he said no, since from his viewpoint, China represented more than a billion new consumers. As China’s economy grows, so will the number of consumers who can buy goods made in the United States. In other words, economic growth in the underdeveloped world will benefit all of us.

Currently, China is about to sur the United States economy, but because of its much larger population, its per capita income is much less. By the way, the term economy means gross national product. And a short definition of gross national product is “the total of all goods and services produced within a country

within a year, including net income from investments in other countries.” The reason for China’s phenomenal economic growth is their encouragement of free market forces, even though they remain a totalitarian country. China has benefited by having low-cost labor and keeping the value of their currency artificially low, and this has attracted many multinational companies to build factories in their country. These multinational companies benefit by being able to sell their products at a low cost, but, in the mean time, the manufacturing expertise that goes into their products is being transferred to the Chinese. As this transfer takes place, it allows Chinese entrepreneurs to build their own factories and sell products to their own population. This is because their population is accumulating wealth by working for the multinationals. In other words, a whole new market is emerging, which in time will bring the whole Chinese population into the modern industrial age. In my opinion, the Chinese growth model is one solution to eliminating poverty. The reason is simple, when all the world’s growing population enters the modern industrial age, markets will continue to expand and the world’s economy will grow.

There are growing pains associated with the Chinese economic growth model that at first might seem to be unacceptable. Uncontrolled growth in China has led to substantial air and water pollution. As a result, disease and sickness is increasing at an alarming rate. There is an accelerating disparity between those who are participating in the industrialized growth and those who are not. Lack of water in the northern parts of China has caused the government to begin a fiftyyear program to expand their Grand Canal and bring the fresh water rich, southern water to the north. However, much of the south’s water has now become contaminated. The requirement to provide China’s 1.3 billion people, and its new factories, with electric power has led to building more and more coal-fired electric power plants, about 2,000 new coal plants are scheduled between now and the year 2030. And the coal contains a high percentage of sulfur. Lack of smokestack emission controls has led to China having five of the top ten world cities with the greatest amount of air pollution. Towns and villages are being uprooted to allow for the industrial spread, and unemployment is at a very high level. Many of China’s citizens have to leave their families, for long periods of time, to seek work at long distances from their homes.

The driving force for worker migration is their willingness to accept low wages, rather than little or no wages. At present, the low-wage incentive is causing companies around the world to build manufacturing plants in China’s industrial parks and importing the low-cost manufactured goods back to their country. For example, China currently exports about $270 billion in manufactured goods per year to the United States while importing only about $50 billion. One result of this imbalance is that an enormous number of shipboard containers coming into US ports, with an enormous number of empty containers being returned back to China.

As wages in China increase and entrepreneurship develops, the people will be able to afford more and more self-made and imported goods, including goods made in the United States. China’s entrepreneurs will build factories near where people live, rather than at central locations, and companies like Wal-Mart will build more and more Chinese-style stores around the country (currently WalMart has seven stores in China—and plans to add many more). Tax revenues, from this economic growth, will be used to clean-up the polluted air and water and extend a network of sewage and wastewater treatment facilities. Healthcare will be improved, and disease prevention will be emphasized. Highways will be constructed throughout China, the south to north canal will progress, and advanced waste disposal facilities will be implemented. It all takes time.

Although, other countries may try to follow China’s economic model and become more self-sufficient, trade imbalances will probably limit this method, since countries like the United States will probably take steps to control their trade imbalance, like tariffs. As a result, other countries who attempt to follow the Chinese model may not be as fortunate. Therefore, we need to find other ways to make underdeveloped counties become self-sufficient and prosperous.

An Alternative to the Chinese Growth Model

The question still remains about how much nonrenewable resources, can planet Earth sustain? If all the world’s population consumed oil at the rate currently consumed by the United States, we would deplete Saudi’s supergiant oil reservoir in months rather than years. If so, then oil and other fossil fuels are not the answer to achieving a world’s population that enjoys the material and health care benefits of our modern industrial society. That’s why I am such a proponent of using hydrogen fuel derived from nuclear and renewable energy and the Earth’s vast supply of water. While current water-cooled nuclear fission reactors could provide enough electricity, we need to have breeder reactors and/or fusion nuclear to provide for a future that consumes a gargantuan amount of power. With regard to a fresh water supply, let’s replicate my proposed “Grand Canal” pipeline/aqueduct in strategic locations around the world.

So who is going to pay for the needed energy and water supply that will kick start a growing world economy? Although the Chinese economic model is a partial solution, I don’t believe that it is enough and what about the availability of other nonrenewable resources that will be consumed at a much greater rate. To my way of thinking, it is the increased rate of consuming nonrenewable materials that provides the answer. How about worldwide recycling using globe circling zeppelins that follow the Jet-stream and make periodic stops along the way? Let’s see how this might work.

At first, we need to provide a livelihood for the impoverished people, so that they can pay for water and other services. My plan, although not the only plan that could be imagined, is to provide recycling service jobs. At some point in time, worldwide recycling of nonrenewable natural resources may not be an option. However, nonrenewable materials can be classified in two forms. The first form being fossil fuels and the second being minerals. In the case of minerals, an eventual solution may be found in our solar system, like mining the moon and/or asteroids. While this may be possible in the future, it may not come soon enough and the economics of recycling what we already have on Earth may still be an economic necessity. Needless to say, if a future population of 20 billion people or more were to use nonrenewable resources, the way that the industrialized world uses them today, most of these resources will eventually become depleted and end up in landfills.

In my opinion, worldwide recycling needs to begin with new product design. In today’s world, engineers think more about making a new product that will sell more than what will happen to the product when it wears out. In fact, many times there is little concern for the repair mechanic that needs to service and repair the product.

With recent advancements in robotics, it would seem prudent to design new products with robotic assembly in mind. By doing this, the designer could also consider robotic disassembly. In a perfect recycling world, products would be produced on an assembly line, with worn-out products being returned to the factory for recovery on a disassembly line.

Since the original product manufacturer knows more about the original product’s material pedigree and assembly process, that manufacturer would be best able to perform the disassembly and reuse process. Also, since the original product manufacturer would know the material specifications for self-manufactured parts and subassemblies, they would also know the companies that supplied purchased parts and subassemblies. These part and subassembly manufacturers could then return products to the originating companies to the point of raw materials processing.

You are probably again saying that this is more “pie in the sky” thinking, and that a so-called perfect recycling world would be so impractical that it will never become a reality. Maybe so, but this is where “I dream of things that never were and say why not.”

OK, let’s examine the advantages to companies that do participate in this process. First of all, products that are assembled and disassembled by multipurpose robotics would tend to be less expensive, even when compared to low-cost manual labor. Second, if the manufacturer planned for disassembly of

obsolete products, with the potential for reusing the obsolete product’s materials and subassemblies in their new products, they could further reduce costs. Third, the product manufacturers would use more non-corroding materials, such as structural plastics, carbon composites, aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, copper, and brass, which would tend to make their products lighter weight, longer lasting and potentially higher quality. And last, but not least, the product manufacturers could restore (remanufacture) obsolete products for low-cost resale to emerging countries. In fact, one scenario may be to make new products from old parts. Even though, remanufactured automotive parts are a big business today, what I am talking about is remanufacturing the entire automobile (or other product). People in emerging countries are not as enamored by up-to-date products as they are in being able to afford a product that they didn’t have before.

Now you’re probably saying, yeah, but how are we going to rescue the obsolete products and return them back to each and every manufacturer without incurring a very high cost and complexity. Well, have you ever heard of Federal Express or UPS? These companies generally deliver packages to central locations for sorting, and then they ship the sorted packages to their destinations. Some packages, that are destined to go to a nearby location, are sent to distant central locations first. Believe it or not, this turns out to be the least costly way to do it.

But doesn’t all of this transportation of products cost a lot of money and use a lot of fuel? Yes, if done by conventional means, like air cargo planes and trucks, especially when we plan to pick up and deliver some very heavy products and deliver them to distant locations. OK, hold on to your seats, the unmanned, low-cost zeppelin, well, that is what I propose we use in this scenario.

So what does all this have to do with the billions of poverty-stricken people, around the world, who are trying to survive on degraded farmland? Well, during the twenty or so years needed for farmland restoration, which I will discuss later, we could employ the services of farmers for disassembly and cleaning of

manufactured products and shipment back to original manufacturers; they would be the “Federal Express” central processing and sorting locations. However, since current product manufacturers are not set up for returned products, I propose using these locations to manually disassemble products and sort the product parts by material groups. The material groups would then be returned to raw material manufacturers for reprocessing. As time goes by, the original product manufacturers can become part of the program in an attempt to reduce their product cost. After all, if they don’t, they will continue to pay ever increasing market prices for materials that they had previously purchased. Get the point?

Let’s begin with 15 thousand distributed locations around the world that will act as central processing and sorting locations for obsolete manufactured goods. In our case, however, we will begin with reprocessing of automobiles with aluminum block engines (about 45 million automobiles become obsolete each year). Although about 80 to 90 percent of aluminum engine blocks are currently being recycled worldwide, we will under-price the current recyclers. This may seem harsh to those who do this recycling now, but keep in mind that we are trying to achieve a much larger objective. Perhaps a onetime buyout of each company affected may be a reasonable approach.

At $0.50 per pound of aluminum and about 300 pounds of aluminum per car engine, we could earn $150 per car for the aluminum block alone, and additional income would come from other parts that are removed from the car. For the 45 million cars that become obsolete each year, we could process sixty cars per week at each of 15 thousand locations. Now assume sixty workers per location, who clean and disassemble cars, are each paid considerably more than $150 per week because of recovered parts in addition to the aluminum blocks. As you can see, the aluminum engine block alone could this process, assuming there were no other operational expenses! And, of course, one significant operating expense would be electric power and fuel.

Therefore, in my proposal, we are going to generate all the required electric

power and fuel using mass-produced, the low-cost 30 percent efficient solar s and hydrogen electrolysis equipment that were developed while implementing the hydrogen fuel infrastructure program in the United States. The photovoltaic power will not only supply electric power, and hydrogen fuel, used for the recycling process, it will also provide air conditioning and other power used by the workers and their families. And while we are at it, let’s provide the families with housing, schools, medical facilities, work uniforms, sewerage systems, and running water.

So what does all of this giveaway program cost—how about $30 million per location, including a portion of one or two zeppelin transporters. This is our “fishing rod” for about 300 people per location, or 4.5 million people total. At $30 million for each of 15 thousand locations, the grand total would be about $450 billion. This money could be provided by the countries participating in the program, and here is what they would get in return:

1. If we assume that 27 thousand square miles of land is being abandoned worldwide each year, we could restore this land. Therefore, additional people could raise animals on the land and sell products and services to the recycle workers and their families. This would set up a mini, almost, self-sustaining economy as time es.

2. Use of numerous square miles of photovoltaics will help to further bring down the costs of photovoltaic s to where they may even be cost competitive with conventional power. As a result, more and more photovoltaic s will be employed to provide power to a growing community that can now afford to buy power. In addition, in the initial stages, 20.5 thousand megawatts of electricity would be produced by renewable fuel—the sun.

3. Since each location will be an entrepreneurial center, we can expect each location’s size and profits to grow, as more and more product manufacturers see the cost savings advantages of the recycling system.

4. As the economy at each location grows, more and more people will become employed and, as a result, the original sponsors of the $450 billion will gain back their investment in tax revenue and a self-sufficient population.

5. Product manufacturers will design their new products with the recycling system in mind (e.g. using rust resistant aluminum or titanium rather than steel). They will also gain a new market for specially designed goods, like small hydrogen-powered cars.

Eventually, as profits grow, and the populations in these proposed farming and recycling centers become more prosperous, they will develop into towns and cities. In effect, they could “kick-start” what should become a world population that consumes electricity, drives cars and trucks, lives in a home with modern conveniences, and contributes to the betterment of mankind. Because water, electricity, and hydrogen fuel will be cheap and abundant, almost all nonrenewable minerals will be recycled, and farmland will be restored and the Earth will be capable of sustaining a huge population—perhaps 20 or more billion people.

As promised above, I will now describe how we can resuscitate degraded farm land. It is a process called “contour bunding.” “Contour bunding,” reduces water runoff by digging holes, to retain manure and water, in the plant root zone. This proven process began with raising cattle and other farm animals to provide manure. The manure stimulated more plant growth which allowed more farm animals and with more farm animals there was more manure in a self-reinforcing cycle of land renewal. The process took about twenty years, but resulted in substantial productivity gains and food production. In addition, when growing crops, on the restored land, a new farming process was instituted. This process involved crop rotation and drip watering which can prevent a new process of soil degradation and the preservation of water.

Well, that pretty well sums it up, but what are the specifics? If “Grand Canals” could be economically constructed around the world, wouldn’t they help to restore previously degraded farmland plus develop deserts into crop production for a growing population? Can you now envision how my previously proposed hybrid wind and solar energy parks and OTEC systems might also help the impoverished? If strategically located throughout the world, couldn’t electricity be delivered by superconducting transmission lines and hydrogen delivered by zeppelins?

If the Coachella Valley is any indication of how economic growth and prosperity can be achieved using desert land, perhaps it could be a portal through which impoverished people could enter into our modern industrial society.

Referring again to the old expression, give a person a fish and the person will have enough food for a day but give a person a fishing rod, and they will have enough food for life.In my plan, we are going to invest in recycling “fishing rods” with the intent of stimulating an economy that will pay itself back many times over.

Chapter 20

The Vertical Farm

I recently read an article about vertical farming, and as you can see from the cartoon, there are some things about it that are quite interesting, especially as it pertains to hydrogen, farming in the Coachella Valley, saving the Ogallala from water depletion and possibly helping to feed the world’s growing population. So I bought a book entitled The Vertical Farm by Dr. Dickson Despommier.

Instead of finding design details and economic justification, I found a lot of irrelevant opinions that had little to do with what I wanted to know. The book advocated building a few very tall glass enclosed buildings in the inner cities to provide locally produced organically grown food. It also advocated having people move from the suburbs to the inner city (area) to take advantage of public transportation, cultural activities, and other benefits. With this idea in mind, it was thought that people would consume less gasoline, especially when food is grown in vertical farms that also help with sewerage treatment by disposing of grey water. My thinking is just the opposite. People need to move out of the congested cities and the further out the better.

Anyone who can do simple arithmetic could show the folly of inner city vertical farms. For instance, if a city were to have 10 million inhabitants, how many of these tall vertical farm buildings would actually be required to feed them? Using Despommier’s example of growing five crops of corn per year with a yield of about fourteen ears per square foot per year, a 300-square-foot space would yield 4,200 ears of corn. That could feed one person about twelve ears of corn per day for 365 days per year. So for the purpose of continuing the calculations, let’s assume that 300 square feet is required per year to feed one person. If so, then we would need 10 million times 300 square feet to feed 10 million people. To further the arithmetic, let’s assume that a square building that is about 250 feet on each side. If a circular hydroponic crop garden of 225 feet in diameter were constructed inside, it would equal about one acre of crops. One acre of hydroponic crops might feed about 145 people at 300 square feet per person. Since we need to feed 10 million people, we would need about seventy thousand crop layers. Being generous in saying that the layers could be spaced ten feet apart, we would need to construct our building to a height of seven hundred

thousand feet. Assuming a skyscraper limit of one thousand feet, we would need to construct seven hundred of these gigantic buildings.

As a point of reference, I chose the former World Trade Center buildings that were once located at the south end of New York’s Manhattan Island. Each square building was 208 feet on each side and rose to a height of 1,362 feet. The cost of constructing the twin towers was about $2.3 billion in today’s dollars and occupied 16 acres of land space. While our 700 hydroponic crop growing buildings may or may not cost $1.15 billion each, it could be close to this number. Using 16 acres per two towers, we would need 5,600 acres (8.75 square miles) of prime city real estate. Since the five boroughs of New York City are comprised of 303 square miles, it’s hard to imagine how 8.75 square miles can be made available for our seven hundred skyscrapers. If we used a practical height of one hundred feet per building, we would need ten times 8.75 square miles. Folks! It just ain’t going to happen. On the other hand, perhaps the inner city idea should be abandoned in favor of other vertical farm possibilities.

While the concept of growing hydroponic crops may sound good at first, there is a glitch. The glitch is that glass enclosed buildings are expensive, and the energy and equipment required to produce artificial lighting and temperature control could overwhelm any profits that could be derived. As an example, the lightemitting diode (LED) lighting required for 2 acres of vertically stacked hydroponic crops could cost about $1.7 million at today’s prices of $2 per watt. The cost of a concrete and glass building would add another $1.5 million. To make matters worse, the energy needed to turn the overhead LED lights on for an average of eighteen hours per day for one year would cost about $330 thousand at $0.1 per kilowatt-hour. If we assume a tenfold crop yield for 2 acres, the wholesale gross profit for one year would be at most $360 thousand. The economic problem gets even worse when you consider that the LED lights would need to be replaced every fifteen years. And then there is the cost of farm supplies, heating, dehumidifying, auxiliary equipment, labor, and maintenance that needs to be taken into .

Not to be deterred, I began looking at the vertical farm in a different way. After all, what if the scientist who discovered preparation H had stopped at preparation G! Although this may not be an appropriate analogy, it does make the point. So in this regard what if mass produced LED lighting could be reduced to $1.00 per square foot. What if instead of paying for electricity from the grid we used lowcost wind and/or solar energy and converted that energy into stored hydrogen that could be used whenever it is needed? What if we extended the life of the LED lights by maximizing the use of natural sunlight? If we could operate the LED’s for an average of six hours per day rather than eighteen, we would extend the LED life to about forty-five years and use only one-third as much energy. What if our building was constructed with concrete that can be purchased for $75 per cubic yard? What if we converted crop residue into ethanol which could be used to supply heat and additional energy? After all, $360 thousand per year in gross income for 2 acres of hydroponic crops is twenty-two times more than the gross income from 2 acres of high-value crops grown in the Coachella Valley!

Besides the above considerations, I wanted to arrive at a basis for the labor requirements to operate a vertical farm. Could one worker eke out a decent living and will the labor costs overwhelm the gross profits to a point where the up-front investment can’t be paid back in a reasonable amount of time? Although Dr. Despommier claims that vertical farms will create thousands of good-paying jobs because the process of growing and harvesting hydroponics needs to be done by hand; it flies in the face of increased productivity and income resulting from the use of automated equipment. the question posed by Milton Friedman when he saw Chinese workers building a road using picks and shovels. When he asked why they aren’t using modern-day earthmoving equipment, the answer was that more people could be employed. Friedman then asked why not use spoons and employ even more people. Apparently Dr. Despommier doesn’t understand economics 101!

Although the following rational may be considered a roundabout way to arrive at the labor requirements for a vertical farm, it’s at least a start. To begin, my mother was born in 1908 and was the eldest of four sisters and one brother. She grew up on a 100-acre farm. The farmhouse that had no running water or

electricity, and the bathroom consisted of an outhouse and chamber pots. Water was obtained from a well, and kerosene lanterns were used for light. The farmhouse had a wood-burning stove, and chopped wood was continuously fed to the kitchen stove all-year long. The staple food was beans, which were continually replenished from the previous year’s crop and kept heated in the stove’s oven. The one-hundred-acre farm had a two-acre vegetable garden and a twenty-acre apple orchard that supplied food throughout the year through canning of fruits and vegetables at harvest time and storing fresh vegetables in the farmhouse cellar. Milk was supplied by cows and eggs by hens. In the winter months, meat was supplied by deer that had been shot and kept frozen in the barn since there was no refrigerator. In the summer months, a chicken or pig was slaughtered. Some of the pork was salted and added to the beans. They grew wheat on the farm and had the local gristmill make flour. To pay the gristmill, it was agreed that the mill operator could keep and sell half of the flour. There was also a country store that bartered with the local farmers. For instance, eggs were exchanged for sugar, and milk was exchanged for molasses. My grandfather cut hay with a sickle, and his primary mode of transportation was a horse and buggy. It was obviously hard work to keep the 100-acre farm going and required help from his wife and children. During the winter months, in order to make ends meet, he cut and sold lumber from trees growing on a portion of the farm. My mother told me that, as a child, one of her farm jobs was to carry lunch to where her father was working.

So here is my conclusion with regard to the amount of labor needed to operate a hydroponic farm. Since my grandfather did most of the farming work, I would also claim that one farmer should, with the help of specialized automated equipment and his family, be capable of taking care of about 2 acres of hydroponic farm area and in addition—growing and caring for livestock. To be generous, I would also assume that this farm family could earn a net income of $100 thousand per year. Considering that 2 acres of hydroponics can generate a gross income of almost $360 thousand per year, it seems reasonable to me to see how the economics could work, especially if farm animals and possibly food processing / packaging were included to generate additional income.

With these thoughts in mind, my thinking is that hydroponically grown crops

could be the wave of the future, and here is why. With ten to fifteen times greater crop yields the amount of land required for growing vertical hydroponic crops could be much less. Water usage would be greatly reduced. Weeding would be unnecessary. Pesticides would be eliminated, and transportation and farming equipment, with its associated fuel cost, would also be minimized. Instead of paying to dump gray water from sewage treatment plants into nearby rivers and streams, how ing it to fertilize the hydroponic crops and getting paid to do it? And how about recovering fresh water from the hydroponic crop growing process via dehumidification?

Let’s begin with the 2-acre vertical farm building (as) shown below:

Three Level Hydroponic Crop Growing Building (two acres of hydroponic crops)

The hydroponic crop growing building is made of reinforced concrete with the top and south-facing sides covered with double thickness insulated glass. Three vertically stacked hydroponic layers result in almost 2 acres of growing space. The top layer is provided with natural sunlight, while the two underneath layers receive sunlight from the south-facing side. As shown in this illustration, additional sunlight is provided by focusing mirrors in a way that provides natural sunlight to the two bottom layers. Below the stacked hydroponic growers a water supply tank is provided. Nutrients and oxygen are continually added to the water which is then pumped to the overhead plants. The nutrients could be derived from fish contained in the water tank or gray water pumped in from a nearby town. Integrated with the water tank is an open area that could serve many purposes in addition to germinating seeds. One purpose could be to produce ethanol from the plant residue. Another purpose could be to house animals and/or package produce. Another use might be to grind wheat and make bakery goods—how about making beer and wine?

Although I had considered using wind turbines and solar photovoltaic s to provide energy, parabolic solar reflectors appear to be the best solution for both northern and southern climates. Since the parabolic reflectors can concentrate enough heat for flowing oil to reach about 750 degrees Fahrenheit, it will be possible to divert some of the hot oil during the winter months to heat the water supply tank by means of a heat exchanger. Since the nutrient-rich, heated water will be pumped to the hydroponic plants, it will act as a distributed source to heat the building and keep the hydroponic plants from freezing. During the warmer months all of the hot oil can be used to produce steam and generate electricity. The electricity can then be used to produce and store energy in the form of hydrogen—by electrolysis. Because of the inefficiencies associated with this process, a heat storage accumulator tank can be used to generate steam and electricity when the sun isn’t shining. The high temperature oil can also be used as the heating source needed to convert plant residue into ethanol. I have done some preliminary calculations to determine approximate costs and required land space, but each climatic condition would need to be evaluated for its specific requirements. In fact if located in a high wind area, like in the Ogallala Aquifer region, a supplemental wind turbine might be economically justified.

To those who are familiar with parabolic solar power, you may be wondering why the parabolic troughs are running east to west rather than the conventional north to south arrangement. The reason is cost. The north to south reflectors need to continually track the sun from east to west, require expensive controls, are subject to mechanical failure, and require frequent cleaning. The east to west reflectors need only be adjusted seasonally. Rather than using an expensive silver coating for the reflector surface, I chose using polished sheet aluminum and less frequent cleaning. To keep efficiencies as high as possible with the east to west selection, I would use the best available receiver tubes (a coated stainless steel tube surrounded by a glass enclosure and vacuum). While my operating efficiency may not be the highest possible, I believe that the system will be long lasting, adequate for its intended purpose, and relatively cheap. At a wholesale price of about $80 for a 4 by 8 aluminum sheet, my reflector material cost would be about $290 thousand. I have assumed $1 million for the completed and installed system.

With regard to the stacked hydroponic layers, here is how they might look:

Cut Away View of Concrete Hydroponic “grower” Level with Removable Plastic Trays for Automated Planting & Havesting

Notice how the concrete structure supplies flowing nutrient rich and oxygenated water to the roots of the hydroponic plants. The stacked spacing is based upon plant height, natural sunlight, and access for automated planting and harvesting equipment. Access to the plants could be obtained by an automated device that traverses on walkways between plant rows. LED lighting and reflective surfaces are placed on the underside of the top layers to minimize LED cost and maximize natural sunlight. Holes could also be added to the walkways to transmit additional light to the crops below.

Now let’s get to the interesting part. Here is a segment of a one-square-mile plot of land that contains about 60 vertical farm buildings:

Multipurpose Hydroponic Crop & Animal Complex (about 60 hydroponic crop buildings per square mile)

Notice how the hydroponic crop buildings are properly spaced to receive adequate sunlight without casting shadows on the adjacent buildings. The spacing also permits focusing sunlight between crop layers by using double reflecting mirrors. Now take notice of the variety of vegetables and grains that can be grown hydroponically(almost any plant can grow hydroponically). Because of the required spacing for the hydroponic crop buildings, a significant amount of open space can be provided for livestock, while the buildings can serve as barns.

A separate building is added to the complex to serve several purposes like

1. Generating “on demand” electric power and heat with a modular steam power plant.

2. Creating and storing energy in the form of hydrogen or heat retaining storage tanks.

3. Producing cellulosic ethanol from plant residue.

When the LED lights need power and the sun is not shining, the electrical energy is fed directly to the lighting system. When there is an imbalance, the system generates and stores hydrogen to produce power whenever it is needed.

As mentioned above, my thinking is that one farm family can maintain one vertical farm building in the complex. When combined with associated livestock and food processing/packaging the farm should be capable of generating as much as $360 thousand or more per year. If we assume that the farm family

keeps $100 thousand and pays down the debt and associated operating expenses with the remaining money, the vertical farm idea might become very attractive. In fact, it could bring back the family owned farm.

Let’s stop at this point and recall that the gross income from one acre of highly productive farmland in the Coachella Valley was about $8 thousand per acre. In the above mentioned vertical farm scenario, we can generate about $34 thousand per acre of available land space. In addition, only about 50 percent of the available land would be required, 70 to 95 percent less water would be consumed, and no pesticides would be used. Perhaps a revised vertical farm version of the Coachella Valley would make sense.

If the vertical farm concept were to be applied to the Ogallala Aquifer region the 5 trillion gallons per year water depletion rate could be reduced to about 1.5 trillion gallons. In addition, higher valued crops normally produced in California could be grown in this Midwest region with a resulting lower transportation cost for delivery to the east coast.

Let’s review where we are at this point:

1. One square mile of land can accommodate sixty 2-acre vertical hydroponic crop farm buildings and associated livestock.

2. One square mile of vertical farms would require a yearly average of about twelve thousand kilowatts of on demand energy produced by renewable energy and crop residue.

3. One square mile of vertical farms could continually feed approximately

twelve thousand people.

4. The total cost of each vertical farm building arrangement could be about $3 million and last about forty years before needing to replace the LED lighting and power generating equipment (I have assumed that mass produced LED lighting will cost about $1 per watt versus today’s cost of $2 per watt, thus making their replacement cost equal to about $600 thousand, including installation labor).

5. One farmer, with family help, can maintain one 2-acre vertical farm, associated livestock, and product processing/packaging requirements (approximate net income = $100 thousand per year per farm family).

6. Each 2-acre vertical crop farm building could generate a gross income of about $360 thousand per year.

Using the above estimates a progressive investment that constructs 10 vertical farm buildings each year would result in an accumulative $157 million investment at the end of ten years (i.e. 100 vertical farms occupying about one square mile). If the progressive investments continued, a net profit of $103 million would result after twenty years. At the end of thirty years it would be $363 million and $623 million after forty years. After the fortieth year, the LED lights and other equipment can be replaced for about $1.5 million rather than the original $3 million since the concrete and glass building and parabolic reflectors / receivers could be reused, almost indefinitely.

If my proposed one-square-mile vertical farm were located near a populated area, several additional advantages could result. For instance, using returnable containers rather than boxes and cans might make sense. In the “old days,” processed fruits and vegetables were put in sealed jars that were later cleaned and reused. With regard to other products, I can think of many alternatives to

cardboard boxes that could be retuned or recycled. Obviously, the amount of fuel required for conventional distribution would be greatly reduced.

Considering all the potential advantages of vertical farming, let’s evaluate how it could be applied as a solution to worldwide population growth and potential starvation in underdeveloped countries. Perhaps a solar-powered vertical farm might solve the land degradation and water shortage problems. Eliminating pests without using pesticides is certainly an important by-product and eliminating the potential for having crops wiped out from flooding and/or locusts would be a good idea. Since the vertical farm could actually have a return on investment, perhaps some entrepreneurs might see a way of solving a world hunger problem while making money at the same time. Recognizing that people living in third world countries don’t have enough money to buy the food products that would be produced by the vertical farm complex, perhaps a form of bartering would make sense. Since it might take a maximum of about two hundred farm families that don’t use automated equipment to feed twelve thousand people, it would free up many existing farmers to do other tasks. How about providing low-cost labor where product profits pay for the vertical farm investments?

From my experience working for Thermo King, I know that it would be possible for crops grown in third world countries to be refrigerated and shipped to distant locations for sale at a reasonable price. A Thermo King system called modulated temperature control can allow products to be kept fresh for long transit times. Because of this possibility, it may be possible for third world countries to export food to developed countries that don’t have much farmland available to them. In return, the developed countries would experience new markets where their manufactured goods could be sold.

To recap, the vertical farm idea was originally conceived as a solution to inner city food supply. The idea of having a numerous multistory buildings located on expensive inner city land just doesn’t make sense. Providing incentives for people to move out of the city does make sense and the further out the better. I like the idea of cities with twenty to twenty-five thousand people. I chose this

number because it’s the number of people in the town of Hastings Nebraska where my former company—Thermo King—has a factory. Twenty-five thousand people can justify two golf courses, many restaurants, a shopping mall, a medical center/hospital, a small airport, a Wal-Mart, several churches, and a few hotels. Much of the food for this population size can probably be provided by a two-square-mile vertical farm complex. To put this into perspective, the United States is comprised of about 300 million people living in an area of 3.78 million square miles. If each twenty-five thousand person population center occupied 1,000 square miles (more than a 30 mile separation between towns) the amount of land required would be three hundred thousand square miles (the size of Texas and Kentucky). By using transportation fuel made from water, electricity from nuclear fusion power plants, and locally produced food, it appears that the United States population has a long way to go before it becomes a problem.

Chapter 21

Naysayers

Let me begin by saying that we need critics. We need critics because they point out things that might have been overlooked when a plan of action has been formulated. However, I am concerned that many times the critics have a hidden political agenda. As a consequence, some good ideas get scuttled before they see the light of day. In the words of Mark Twain, “I ire those who seek the truth, but I am wary of those who claim to have found it.”

Many times, decisions are made before doing simple arithmetic. When someone claims that there is a hundred years supply of oil, a simple calculation—using a 2 percent compounded growth model—could prove the fallacy of this statement. That is not to say that some gigantic oil reservoir might be discovered in the future, but without proof it is just wishful thinking, and not fact. One of my favorite quotes is from Lord Kelvin, “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot measure it and express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind. It may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.”

I am concerned that many decisions made by our government, and governments around the World, do not meet Lord Kelvin’s criteria. This is especially true with regard to energy and energy policy. When our energy policies are based upon a supposed fear of man-made global warming, we are—in my opinion—being totally unrealistic, especially when the underdeveloped World is building thousands of coal fired power plants and we are trying to solve the supposed problem by driving hybrid cars and taxing carbon emissions. Then again, is there a hidden political agenda behind driving hybrid cars and taxing carbon emissions? I think there is, and here is why:

To quote famed Manhattan Project scientist and renowned genius Richard Feynman, “Science is a belief in the ignorance of the experts.” So whilst there are many scientists who sincerely believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming, keep in mind that much of what they

believe is based upon half truths and incomplete scientific knowledge. In fact, they may be using science to keep their incomes flowing from government study grants. Since politicians around the World appear to believe the currently— politically correct—idea of catastrophic man-made global warming they have a tendency to require a litmus test before they distribute grant research money. Could it be that man-made global warming is really a political issue that has nothing to do with preventing the oceans from rising? Lets review some quotes by some prominent people and organizations:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

—Club of RomePremier environmental think tank consultants to the United Nations

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in of economic and environmental policy.”

—Timothy Wirth President of the UN Foundation

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

—Dr. David Frame Climate modeler, Oxford University

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

—Paul Watson Cofounder of Greenpeace

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”

—David Rockefeller Club of Rome executive member

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

—Dave Foreman Cofounder of Earth First

“A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels would be ideal.”

—Ted Turner Founder of CNN and major donor to the UN

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is man.”

—Club of Rime Mankind at the Turning Point

If you would like to read more quotes like these, please visit the website www.green—agenda.com. Authors of other similar quotes include Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Al Gore, Prince Philip, Mikhail Gorbachev, Harry Reid, Gordon Brown, and Angela Merkel. While their intentions may actually be good, I am very concerned that their utopian ideas are much too radical for me to accept. Culling the earth’s human population as a solution to global warming, water shortages and other concerns is unimaginable. Yet here are prominent people and organizations, using global warming scare tactics, to help create a one World government that, when in power, may resort to extreme measures. Do these extreme measures include sterilization of the people that are deemed unsuitable to have children? Do these measures include mass exterminations of undesirables? Does food deprivation provide a convenient population reduction solution? Do they intend for most of the World’s population to live a meager agrarian existence, while only a select few of the ruling class enjoy the benefits of a modern industrial age? In any event, it has the ring of Hitler and Nazi . If Hitler had prevailed and had absolute power, just imagine what he would have done to solve the population issue. A clear and unequivocal example of how absolute control results in misery and hardships is the failed Soviet Union. If you are one who believes that under the “right” leadership, a Soviet-style of government can work, you may be right, but as the old saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Without checks and balances, who knows whether the person in charge will be a smart and benevolent dictator or a

selfish and corrupt tyrant? All I can say is, be careful about what you wish for.

Even if the above-mentioned prominent people, ing the global warming agenda, do not harbor the idea of implementing the above-mentioned extreme measures, they might not have thought it through to a logical conclusion. After all, the idea of redistributing wealth sounds commendable when you see the disparity between the rich and poor, and the squalor and despair that so many of the World’s population must endure. But enriching the impoverished by impoverishing the rich doesn’t make sense. If you tax the rich too much, they will lose their incentive to innovate and create jobs. As a result, the redistributed wealth will be so diluted that everyone will be impoverished—except, of course, for the ruling class. This is typical of what I call static thinking. It is thinking that does not for a dynamic reality like the fact that the rich will lose their incentive, and economic growth will be stifled. Besides, it is fallacious to believe in a zero-sum game. Wealth can and should be expanded so that there will be enough for everyone. And the most tried and true wealth expansion—or growth —process is free markets. It is what has made the United States the economic powerhouse that it is today, and it is why China’s economy is currently growing so fast. Fortunately, China’s current dictatorial government understands the benefits of a free market system, and it is my guess that eventually the Chinese people will demand their freedom and move to a more just form of government.

By claiming that the cause of global warming is man made, the above-mentioned enthusiasts are in effect brainwashing the public. After the brainwashing is completed, they probably expect the public to accept the redistribution of global wealth through carbon tax legislation and similar measures. They might also accept higher energy costs and a resulting lower standard of living in order to “save the planet.” Included in this brainwashing will be a belief that “green energy,” produced by wind turbines and solar energy, will replace the nasty carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power. Well folks, you must know by now that this belief is a house of cards, and widespread implementation of solar s and wind turbines will have dire consequences, not the least of which will be an inordinate use of potential crop-producing land. And without crops, people will starve!

Consider this. More than thirty-one thousand American scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project. These scientists include more than nine thousand PhDs, and the signers include world-renowned physicists such as Prof. Edward Teller and Prof. Freeman Dyson. Nearly four thousand of the signers are scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the earth and the past and current phenomena that effect the environment.

The petition states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disrupt the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce material beneficial effects upon the plant and animal environments of the earth.”

Perhaps even after what I have presented so far, you are still convinced that manmade catastrophic global warming is real and that wind turbines will save the day; let me give you some additional facts. However, be forewarned, these facts may cause you to experience cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance may occur when scientific data provides ever more convincing arguments against a favored paradigm. It causes all sorts of mental machinations that allow us to retain our preconceived notions of reality. It is humanity’s inherent ability to ignore unpleasant facts. This is especially true among scientists who have spent much of a lifetime trying to prove the validity of a premise in question. The emotional stakes are high.

I would like to begin by explaining what I believe to be the fundamental reason why global warming and global cooling exists, and why it is a naturally occurring phenomena. Due to a combination of axial precession and tilt, and varying orbital changes around the sun—resulting from gravitational interaction with other planets in our solar system—planet Earth is expected to experience a worst case of freezing and thawing effect about every twenty thousand years— an ice age. Earth’s precession cycle is about twenty-one thousand years. Its axis

tilt angle—relative to the sun—is about forty-one thousand years. The orbital eccentricity cycle is about hundred thousand years, and the orbital plane angle is about seventy thousand years. These phenomena are called Milankovich cycles. What this means is that during the twenty-thousand-year ice age cycle, Earth will experience varying degrees of warming and cooling because of its relationship to the sun. In fact, recent history shows that a mini ice age occurred from 1,300 to 1,500. At that time, people living in London, England, were ice skating on the Thames River. Before that time, we had a medieval warming period from 800 to 1,300. This was a time when Viking explorers settled on Greenland’s warm and hospitable shores. Before that time, the earth experienced a “dark age,” cold period, between AD 300 and AD 800. Needless to say, manmade carbon dioxide was not the culprit in causing these periods of global heating and cooling. In fact, if you have been influenced by the famous “hockey stick” graph showing a correlation between currently rising global temperatures and recent industrial age carbon dioxide emissions, you might want to reexamine your conclusions. Since the “hockey stick” graph did not accurately display past global heating and cooling periods, it has been discredited. In fact, it has been ridiculed by the widely viewed and famous “YouTube” video skit called “Hide the Decline.”

Of course, the cause of global heating and cooling is not just attributable to Milankovich cycles. If it were not for water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmospheric gases, the earth’s global temperature would be much lower than it is. However, increasing the amount of water vapor and/or carbon dioxide does not equate to a linear increase in global temperatures. In other words, by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide, its effect on global temperatures is not a doubling of its temperature influence when acting by itself. Because of this interaction between water vapor and carbon dioxide, the influence of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels has almost no consequence.

Rather than go into a lot of detail showing the fallacy of catastrophic man-made global warming, I recommend that you visit this website www.theresilientEarth.com. I believe that when you read the articles provided in this website, you will begin to see the possibility that what you have been told about man-made global warming is a man-made hoax.

Of all the things that I have read regarding the fallacy of man-made global warming, the thing that I find most intriguing is a finding made by a prominent climate scientist and advisor to the United Nations named Susan Solomon. Susan found that from 2000 to 2009, water vapor in the stratosphere had diminished, with the result of depressing global warming by about 25 percent compared to that which could be attributed to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In other words, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were rising, during this time period, the earth somehow accommodated this rise by reducing its stratospheric water vapor content. Wow! This is indeed strange. As we all know, when global temperatures rise, the oceans evaporate and clouds form. Increased cloud formation means increased precipitation and snowfall. Between the increased snowfall and the clouds themselves, more sunlight is reflected back into space. As a result, the earth’s temperature will tend to fall. Somehow, the earth appears to be protecting itself from a “runaway” temperature effect!

Further with regard to the issue of global warming, I recently read a book entitled The Greatest Hoax by United States Senator David Inhofe. It was a real page-turner and eye-opener—I could hardly put it down. The book centered on the global warming debate in the senate, but what made it so fascinating to me was that it described many interesting aspects about the inner workings of our government.

In Inhofe’s book, he explains that he had become the lone outspoken skeptic of man-made global warming in our congress. He began his skepticism by questioning the predicted devastating consequences of man’s contribution to global warming. His main argument against legislation—like “cap and trade”— was that it would destroy the US economy by imposing the biggest tax increase in history. Inhofe argued that the people who would be hurt the most were the poor because energy expenses are a bigger portion of their income. Not only would it cost taxpayers about four-hundred-billion dollars per year, but it would also cause many US manufactures to move production facilities to countries like China, India, and Brazil. Since these countries did not have our stringent pollution controls or plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, pollution and

carbon dioxide emissions could probably go up. Thus without worldwide participation in the carbon dioxide reduction program, the US legislation would be “all pain and no gain.” It was Inhofe’s argument of “all pain and no gain” that has kept the United States congress from ing “cap and trade” into law.

In 2003, there were few in congress that doubted the dire consequences of manmade global warming. Although there were some skeptics in congress, only Senator Inhofe was outspoken about it. Doing this during the peak of the global warming frenzy was tantamount to announcing that he believed that the earth was flat. After all, the United Nations of renowned scientists wrote reports saying that man-made global warming was real. This was the gold standard and who could doubt it. The problem was that the actual reports did not definitively state that global warming was associated with increasing man-made carbon dioxide emissions, but politically motivated executive summaries did. Unfortunately, congress and the media only read the executive summaries. Ultimately, the climate-gate scandal discredited the United Nations reporting, especially with the fudged data behind the famous “hockey stick” graph which showed the twentieth century to be the warmest in the last two thousand years.

I am not going to go into the numerous examples of discredited science behind the global warming scare, but politically motivated science can work both ways. While I have the highest regard for Senator Inhofe’s courage and perseverance, I would caution him about information provided about the availability of fossil fuels in the United States. Even though the United Nations scientific reports were falsely reported by politically motivated executive summaries, Senator Inhofe’s statements, about the availability of fossil fuels in the United States, are somewhat misleading with a lack of a global perspective with regard to worldwide demand for oil.

On pages 164 and 165 in Inhofe’s book, he states that the United States “is endowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s enough oil to maintain America’s current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than fifty years.” In my opinion, this statement is

misleading because it doesn’t use the words “undiscovered technically recoverable.” In other words, it is a scientifically based educated guess. Until the oil is actually discovered and is shown to be economically recoverable, we should not base US policy upon the hope that it will become a reality. Besides, as I have shown, 163 billion barrels of oil is not all that much when viewed globally, but it can help to free the United States from imported oil in a relatively short period of time. As such I applaud Senator Inhofe for advocating that we minimize obstructing regulations and make federal land and offshore regions available so that we can begin exploration and drilling for the “undiscovered” oil as soon as possible. After all there is “a clear and present danger” to our economic viability and national security and an aggressive drilling program will help immensely. And so will starting a program that phases in hydrogen. Let’s do both!

Let us face it. Eventually, we are going to run out of fossil fuels if we continue on our current path. Therefore, doesn’t it make sense to develop alternate ways of making energy? While I have no problem with energy research, I do have a problem with research into ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Currently, the most favored way is called carbon sequestration. The most common sequestration scheme is to pump the carbon dioxide gas more than a mile underground. This is a very expensive process that if done on a massive scale would be impractical. Imagine pumping thousands of “cubic miles” of carbon dioxide into the ground; it just doesn’t make sense—I have done the arithmetic. Yet experts talk about it as if it can and should be done. Where is our common sense, especially if these actions will do nothing to prevent naturally occurring global warming, or cooling?

When I see science programs on television that tell us that humans are spewing trillions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, it sounds ominous, until you again do some simple arithmetic. When you do the arithmetic, you find that these trillions of pounds are miniscule when compared to the volume and weight of the earth’s atmosphere. As one scientist puts it—if you doubled the amount of airborne carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, it would be like adding one more person to a crowd of seventy thousand at a Sunday afternoon football game. Moreover, as previously mentioned, a doubling

of carbon dioxide does almost nothing to affect an increase in the earth’s temperature. My analogy is that man-made carbon dioxide actually does contribute to global warming, but so does pouring a glass of water into the ocean raise the ocean’s water level.

With regard to man-made carbon dioxide and other really harmful pollutants, consider this. When transportation energy is derived from only hydrogen and electric power is derived only from nuclear fuel and renewable sources, the global warming issue will go away; However, as you now know, global warming is not the issue at all. It was overpopulation and a political attempt to gain power over people’s lives. So even if the carbon dioxide issue were solved, it wouldn’t satisfy the zealots. This means that my hydrogen plan will meet with additional claims of disaster in spite of it being the only practical solution to the supposed global warming issue.

With all of the above being said, let’s look at what the critics will say,

Concern 1: Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve will destroy pristine land and upset its ecosystem.

Answer: This did not happen when the Alaskan oil pipeline was built. In fact, the animal population has grown to where it is currently an overpopulation problem.

Concern 2: Drilling for oil and natural gas in the Bakken will destroy ecosystems and disrupt local inhabitants.

Answer: The ecosystem will not be destroyed, and because it is sparsely inhabited, the people living there will be appropriately compensated.

Concern 3: If we drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we will have another British Petroleum (BP) type of oil spill.

Answer: We have learned our lesson from the BP oil spill, and another oil spill is extremely unlikely. Besides, other countries are going to drill there anyway, so why shouldn’t we?

Concern 4: A substantial amount of natural gas will be used to produce hydrogen.

Answer: Yes, that is why my plan transitions to make hydrogen from water using nonfossil fuel energy sources.

Concern 5: For my 200 percent hydrogen plan, we will need to add the equivalent of about 2,000 one thousand megawatt nuclear reactors. Since we currently use 104 nuclear reactors in the United States to produce about 20 percent of our electrical energy, isn’t this too much too fast?

Answer: In my opinion two thousand more equivalent one thousand megawatt reactors is not enough. We should add another four hundred equivalent reactors to produce almost all of our electricity from nuclear power rather than use fossil fuels. Keep in mind it will take at least forty years for all of these additional reactors to become operational; besides, my proposal is to use renewable energy as a fuel saver. Also, note that the breeder-type hydrogen-producing reactors are located in sparsely populated regions of the United States and are not subject to earthquakes or tsunamis.

Concern 6: Nuclear fuel processing, reprocessing, and radioactive waste will become a significant problem with so many additional reactors.

Answer: Remote-controlled processing and reprocessing of nuclear fuels has been significantly advanced since the first facilities were made operational. The breeder reactors will almost eliminate long-lived radioactive waste, and shortlived radioactive waste can be safely and inexpensively stored. In the long run, nuclear fusion will eliminate radioactive waste.

Concern 7: The “Grand Canal’s” man-made lake will cost more than using cooling towers to cool the reactors.

Answer: The “Grand Canal’s” man-made lake probably does cost more than cooling towers, but the lake also serves as a holding pond for regulating water flow to the Ogallala Aquifer and the Mojave and Sonora Deserts.

Concern 8: The “Grand Canal” will cause downstream erosion due to sediment build up at the Missouri River dam site, and land near the dam site will become flooded and fish migration routes will become blocked.

Answer: Damming the Missouri River will be different from most river dams. Flooding at the dam site is the purpose of the dam, and there will be very little effect on the surrounding sparse population. Because of the size of the dam, sediment build up and downstream erosion will be controlled. As far as disrupting fish migration routes is concerned, fish will be screened out of the intake pipes leading to the canal.

Concern 9: Having the Social Security consortium-controlling hydrogen, sales

will hurt US oil companies.

Answer: The top five US oil companies earn about $125 billion in profits per year, and that’s after purchasing oil from other countries. When they drill for domestic oil, they will pay less for oil and make even more profits since they will own the oil reservoirs. These additional profits will more than offset the 12 percent hydrogen use at the end of ten years. Moreover, because 47 percent of oil is used for nonfuel purposes, the continuing reduction in gasoline sales will be offset by selling hydrogen to the consumer at the gas station pump. In any event, the oil supply will not last indefinitely, and the oil companies will need to adjust sometime in the future.

Chapter 22

Prophets of Doom

I am including this chapter because of my optimism for the future. It has always amazed me how some people can only see doom and gloom. My belief is that these people lack imagination. For some reason, they cannot see where technology is taking us and what the human race is capable of doing to solve problems.

I recently watched a History Channel program entitled Prophets of Doom. In this program, six men described various reasons why the United States and the world are headed for disaster. The first man claimed overpopulation, a collapse of deteriorating infrastructures, and a lack of nonrenewable resources will be the cause. The second man explained why increasing indebtedness will result in economic chaos. The third man claimed that we are so dependent upon oil, that when “peak” oil occurs we will all be doomed. The fourth man claimed that we are fast approaching a water shortage that will have devastating consequences for the world’s growing population. The fifth man said that we are headed for a nuclear holocaust, and the sixth man claimed that advancements in technology will result in robots that will destroy their human creators. Surprisingly, none of these men mentioned global warming, since it seems to fit the alarmist mind-set.

Except for the population growth, nuclear holocaust, and robots that destroy their creators, all the things that these men are concerned about are solved by Plan A or B described in this book. In my opinion, even the population issue and the threat of a nuclear holocaust will be lessened when the world’s population participates in having modern day industrial products and access to modern day medical achievements. As for robots destroying their creators, the whole idea is absurd. Since human emotions will never be programmable, a robot will never have the desire to destroy its creator unless it is deliberately programmed behave in this way!

The rise and fall of the Roman Empire was referred to by the prophets of doom as an example of how great civilizations eventually destroy themselves. Well, that was then and this is now. The problems that caused the Roman Empire to

fall are much different than those that the world is facing today.

In the face of so many gloom and doom scenarios, how can I be so optimistic? The answer is simple. When you look at the technology that has evolved over the last two hundred years and logically extrapolate its trend to where we should be in the future it’s not difficult to identify solutions to all of our current problems. This extrapolation and the processes needed to make these solutions happen is very complex, since there are so many parameters and pathways that can be taken. The technical part of the extrapolation is not difficult to understand because of known technology and common sense, but the political aspects tend to muddy the water. In spite of what appears to be ineptitude on the part of political leaders, one political aspect that is very predictable is a response to a crisis. The problem with politicians, and their response to a crisis, is that many times their response is illogical and inappropriate. It is sometimes influenced by ideology, a need to be reelected, and misinformation provided by biased special interest groups. As surprising as it might seem, the misinformation can come from scientists who have a vested interest in preserving their premises and— heaven forbid—preserving their government funding levels. In many instances the premises of these scientists are grounded in technological fragments that they have extrapolated to formulate an overall conclusion. In other words, when a paleontologist finds a few bone fragments and constructs what he (or she) believes to be what the animal must have looked and acted like, it is not without scientific foundation, but it is still a guess. My problem is that too many scientific guesses are presented to the nonscientific public (many of whom are policy makers) as fact.

To me the greatest threat to our future is the inappropriate actions of misguided or devious politicians and has very little to do with technological or economic feasibility. However, because their actions are generally based upon real or perceived threats, they may occasionally take the right steps. My hope is that they will get more things right than they will get wrong. If this is so, we have a chance of survival. Fortunately in a free, educated, and informed society, the majority of people will know what should be done and force politicians to make good decisions. As internet communications and alternative news media continue to improve, the public will be much more informed than they have been

in the past. As a result the people will eventually rule rather than be ruled by power hungry politicians and dictators.

In this chapter, I am going to assume that future leaders and politicians will get most things right, and that when they get them wrong, these inept leaders and politicians will be replaced by others who will make appropriate course corrections. This is the founding principal upon which the United States is based, and it is why I believe that the United States needs to remain a dominant power and lead the world. Any country that is based upon a totalitarian government cannot—in my opinion—survive in the long run, because it will eventually become corrupt. It is also why the rise and fall of the Roman Empire should not be used as a historical basis for the downfall of the United States. There are very few similarities that equate us with Rome. The most important dissimilarities are our vastly superior technological knowledge, our modern day industrial complex, and global reach.

After reading the beginning chapters of this book it should be obvious that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels and that hydrogen will replace transportation fuels, and fusion nuclear will replace current stationary fossil and fission nuclear electric power plants. As you now know by now, hydrogen can be made from water using a thermo-chemical process, and fusion nuclear power can be produced from water and our vast supply of lithium. In the long run, fusion power will be derived from an element found on the moon, and in the upper atmosphere of our gaseous planets, called helium-3. If the future is kind to us, a modular form of helium-3 fusion power will be miniaturized to power our homes and automobiles. However, before these events happen, a number of interim steps will need to take place. If politicians prevent these interim steps from happening in a timely manner, we could be in for some serious problems.

In my opinion the interim steps should begin in the United States by implementing the forty year Plan A or B that I have described in this book. In summary these steps are:

1. Drill for domestic oil and natural gas to the extent possible.

2. Convert to hydrogen as our transportation fuel.

3. Develop cost effective forms of renewable energy.

4. Introduce the breeder reactor to extend our fission nuclear fuel supply.

5. Build a “Grand Canal” which will provide an almost infinite supply of fresh water.

6. Develop small and large-scale remote-controlled zeppelins.

7. Develop conventional fusion nuclear.

8. Redirect NASA’s space program to establishing a mining base on the moon.

9. Develop advanced—helium-3—fusion nuclear.

It is not my intent to exclude other countries from doing these same things, but I believe that the United States needs to lead the way and show how to do it.

So what happens after we do all of these things in forty years? Well, let’s begin by replacing our obsolete equipment with fusion rather than fission nuclear and exporting our hydrogen-production technology to the world. For the countries that have a nuclear capability, I can imagine how the ocean-based nuclear/OTEC systems would benefit countries like Japan and Great Britain that don’t have much land available to them. For the nonnuclear countries, that have land available for energy parks, the various forms of renewable energy systems could be made available. For poor countries that need water, electric power, and hydrogen to help them grow, how about donating some of our growing wealth by supplying them with these things? Because of the vastly improved economic growth that the United States will probably experience by implementing Plan A or B, we should be capable of providing a new form of foreign aid. It would be a foreign aid that provides fishing rods rather than fish. In my opinion, the numerous potential benefits that will come from helping impoverished people around the world to become self-sufficient consumers will be immeasurable.

In the long run, the population issue and running out of nonrenewable resources will eventually become an insurmountable problem if nothing is done to prepare for it. That’s why, in my opinion, mining the solar system is important and mining the moon is a necessary first step. Since helium-3 and other valuable minerals such as platinum are plentiful on the moon, it’s possible that mining could be profitable enough to the space program. However, the ultimate goal should be to use the available materials in space to accommodate Earth’s future population.

In case, you don’t understand what I mean let me begin by telling you some things that might surprise you. I’ll begin with the amount of helium-3 that is contained in the atmospheres of Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter. How about 3,000,000,000,000,000 thousand pounds? When you consider that 900 thousand pounds of helium-3 is enough fusion fuel to provide one year’s worth of power to the Earth’s current population, you might begin to appreciate the potential of this power source and the need for mining in space. But that’s not all folks. Besides the vast amount of helium-3 fuel, the asteroids contain the following vast amounts of other materials that could serve to Earth’s future population:

1. 1,650,000,000,000,000,000 thousand pounds of iron.

2. 115,500,000,000,000,000 thousand pounds of nickel.

3. 8,250,000,000,000,000 thousand pounds of cobalt.

4. 24,750,000,000,000 thousand pounds of platinum.

5. In addition to large quantities of other materials such as gold, silver, copper, manganese, titanium, rare earths, silicon, and uranium.

Putting these numbers into perspective, consider the fact if we were to build a six-inch thick hollow iron sphere to enclose the planet Mars, we would be using only 0.011 percent of the amount of iron available. However, as large you may think, these numbers are the total weight of all the known asteroids and comets only represents a very miniscule fraction of Earth’s total weight.

You might also be interested in one other piece of information: one asteroid in particular, Ceres, contains about five times as much fresh water as there is on Earth. For the Ceres asteroid, an upper limit was estimated to be 430,000,000,000,000,000 thousand pounds of fresh water.

Perhaps with these quantities of materials in mind, it isn’t too farfetched to believe that very large satellites could be robotically built to provide living spaces for Earth’s future inhabitants. Moreover, since Jupiter’s moon Titan

contains vast amounts of liquefied nitrogen, it is conceivable that the satellite’s oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere could be derived from space.

Many years ago, NASA proposed a cylindrical-shaped rotating satellite to capture solar energy and beam it to Earth using microwaves. The satellite was about a-mile long and about a-quarter mile in diameter. By rotating the cylinder at a specified speed, a centrifugal force could be established that would simulate Earth’s gravity on the inner surface, thereby allowing people to live in space. Of course, the ends of the cylinder needed to be closed and the space within the satellite filled with air. This concept intrigued me at that time and it still does. Why not use the materials in space to create huge rotating satellites as a solution to Earth’s exponentially growing population?

Considering the aforementioned materials available in space, I decided to do some simple arithmetic to see how many people could live comfortably in selfcontained rotating cylindrical space habitats. The cylinder that I chose was 16 miles in diameter and 48 miles long. On the inside surface of the cylinder, I created family living spaces that were 100 feet high and 800 feet in diameter. These living spaces were stacked 12 high with a common area on top. Considering the need for ing a large and growing population, most of the living spaces were set aside for food production, future population growth, and other purposes. With these design attributes, I estimated a population limit of about 2.5 million. By estimating the amount of materials needed to create one of these satellites and dividing it into the amount of materials available, I was very surprised by the answer. How about 12 million satellites housing 30 trillion people!

My better judgment tells me that I should probably just let this go and let the reader ponder what this idea might mean with regard to Earth’s long-term future. Nevertheless, I will give my rendition in the next chapter.

Chapter 23

The Future and Beyond

Yogi Berra once said, “Don’t make predictions, especially about the future.” I should probably heed Yogi’s advice and delete this chapter. On the other hand, I find forecasting the future to be quite interesting and entertaining, like a hobby. While I might be wrong about my predictions, I hope that you will find them to be intriguing and that they will serve as food for thought. I believe that predicting the future is best accomplished by telling a science fiction story. In my story, I am not going to try to keep you entertained with “Star Trek” space battles and “Star wars” bar scenes. Instead, I will build upon the rotating satellite idea presented in the last chapter. So here we go.

The Epsilon Eridani Story

It is the year 2360, and after 110 years of multi-generational space travel, Earth’s exploratory spacecraft has begun orbiting an earthlike planet in the Epsilon Eridani solar system. Dr. Jason Harvath is preparing to lead a team of scientists to explore the planet’s surface. Although his great grandfather had actually lived on planet Earth, and had described the experience to him, Jason could only imagine what it must have been like. But now he would know.

Many thoughts were running through Jason’s mind as he contemplated what he was about to encounter. Among these thoughts was a flashback to a history class that he attended while in middle school. This class had a profound effect on Jason’s future education and career decisions.

Jason learned that back in the year 2070 a huge space interferometer telescope array had been developed by NASA to focus on the earth’s closest star systems that were most likely to have earthlike planets. This imaginative solar system wide telescope had the ability to see and spectrally analyze planets as small as our Earth’s moon, at a distance as far away as 30 light years. Although it was

hoped that our closest star system, Alpha Centauri, at 4.3 light years away, would yield an earthlike planet, it had long been theorized that this was very unlikely. The reasoning was that in a binary (or trinary system in the case of Alpha Centauri) star system, a gaseous planet like Jupiter could not exist because of the heat generated by the adjacent stars. And without a Jupiter-sized planet an earthlike planet would be unlikely. The theory was that Jupiter, with its enormous gravity, collects up most of the asteroids that may collide with and devastate an earthlike planet—a space vacuum cleaner, so to speak.

Looking beyond Alpha Centauri, the telescope array discovered an earth-like planet in the Epsilon Eridani solar system—10.8 light years from earth. Although its sensors could not determine the exact composition of the planet it did show a distinct blue, green, and brown color, which would be indicative of water, vegetation, and land.

Of particular interest was a moon surrounding this planet that was about the same size, distance, and orbital rotation as Earth’s moon. The moon was of special interest since it was believed that life could not have evolved on Earth without its moon. The main reason being that the moon’s gravity acts to stabilize the earth’s tilt axis.

Of further interest was the existence of gaseous and solid planets that looked very much like our own solar system. Unfortunately, the interferometer telescope could not detect objects the size of comets or asteroids. Since no radio signals were being emitted from the planet, speculation about the possibility of primitive life began to grow. As a result, NASA was given the green light to launch an unmanned flyby mission (a one-way mission that does not slow down when it reaches its destination—a fuel consuming requirement) to evaluate the earthlike planet in more detail. Because of the required 110-year flight time, it was decided not to make it longer by exploring closer solar systems like Alpha Centauri, Barnard’s star, and Sirius.

In the year 2080, the unmanned flyby spacecraft was finally launched to explore the Epsilon Eridani solar system. Upon arrival, 110 years later, its images and sensor readings were sent back to earth. However, it was the year 2200 by the time the radio signals (transmitted at the speed of light) were received back on Earth. But when they were received, the data was astonishing. The probe’s telescopic images confirmed the existence of life. In fact, the real probability of human life was inferred by the existence of man-made objects and what appeared to be the movement of animals and human beings.

Fortunately, because of overpopulation and energy shortages experienced in the twenty-first century, humans had begun migrating to space to live in orbiting satellites. By the year 2060, the United States had just completed its first commercial demonstration of helium-3 fueled fusion electric power. Helium-3 was a substance found in the upper atmosphere of our gaseous planets and deposited on the moon’s surface by solar winds. In a nuclear fusion reaction, helium-3 atoms, when ed together, produced an electrically charged proton and generated electricity directly without requiring the additional step of converting heat into steam. And best of all, the fusion process was completely safe and did not produce radioactive waste.

Also in the year 2060, NASA had established a base on the moon and deployed a successful mission to Mars. Because they didn’t find life on Mars, taxpayers were unwilling to future space exploration that didn’t have a payoff. Since Mars had an elliptical orbit that resulted in extreme temperatures and did not have a protective magnetic field, NASA finally itted that terra-forming Mars, for future human inhabitation, was impractical.

It was at this crucial point in time that President Thomas Mitsufugi announced that he had received approval from congress to redirect NASA’s efforts to that of mining helium-3 on the moon. He had also received an agreement from every electric utility company in the United States to build at least one helium-3 fusion electric power plant within five years and negotiated with other countries that showed a willingness to participate. Since the moon was not owned by the

United States, an offer of technical assistance was made to any country that would like to develop a mining program. Willingness to have an all-out effort to build helium-3 fusion power plants was a direct result of prior failed energy policies and a sense of panic as fossil fuels were becoming scarce.

The initial phase of the mining program consisted of building a launch ring which used superconducting magnets. This provided a much lower cost method of putting cargo, rather than humans, into space when compared to NASA’s abandoned space shuttle program. The cargo, which could withstand very high acceleration forces, permitted mining on the moon, including a moon-based catapult launch system. In addition, a shuttle vehicle was designed to deliver moon materials between the moon and earth.

Electromagnetic Launch Ring

Besides helium-3, many other valuable elements were found on the moon, including platinum, which could be used to coat the electrodes for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As it turned out, the moon’s craters contained these valuable elements near its surface. Because the moon had only one-sixth of earth’s gravity, the valuable minerals, contained in the asteroids that had impacted the moon, remained near the moon’s surface. The theory was that when the earth, moon, and asteroids were solidifying, heavy elements like gold and platinum did not oxidize, and because of gravity and buoyancy, settled toward the centers of these bodies. While other elements that readily oxidized like iron, calcium and magnesium floated to the surface; thus, when asteroids impacted the moon, large quantities of these heavy non-oxidizing elements became available near the moon’s surface after impact.

As time went by, an improved mining program was initiated by creating a moon regolith (moon soil) processing station in space. This processing station consisted of a large one-mile diameter by three-miles long rotating cylindrical satellite. The rotation simulated Earth’s gravity on its inner surface and provided living quarters for workers. Since solar intensity was eight times stronger in space than it is on Earth, several large solar collectors were used to power the regolith processing system and beam excess energy back to earth using microwaves. This energy was used to power the original electromagnetic launch ring in addition to several others as time went on.

Thanks to the work of physicist Brandon Johnson, everyone today has their own low-cost helium-3 fusion modules to supply home electricity and power automobiles. And with space-based robotic collection and processing systems, helium-3 eventually became very inexpensive and readily accessible. Helium-3 became inexpensive because by the twenty-second century, it was being extracted from the upper atmosphere of Jupiter. At that time, spacecraft were being sent to Jupiter to extract and freeze helium-3 and transport it back to Earth.

Upon successful completion of the first mining space station in 2106, a proposal

was made to double its size using residual moon regolith and iron by-products. Unlike the first space station, the second station was built entirely by robotics. The only human activity was to provide processed Moon and Earth materials and the robots did the rest. Because of improvements made over the previous years, the second space station was completed in only 25 years.

By the year 2220, after successive redoubling in size, a 16 miles in diameter by 48 miles long orbiting cylinder was completed. And with the addition of helium3 nuclear-powered rocket engines, it had been converted into a spacecraft that could take humans on the 110-year voyage to explore Epsilon Eridani’s earthlike planet. It was named Epsilon 1 to commemorate the voyage that it was about to take.

To insure sufficient and reliable electric power and propulsion for the round trip, redundant fusion reactors and an excess of fuel were provided. However, twentythree more years were needed to fill the fuel tanks with helium-3 and deuterium from the upper atmosphere of Jupiter and from the water containing asteroid Ceres. Seven additional years were required to board a beginning population of 250 thousand people.

The living spaces, for Epsilon 1’s inhabitants, consisted of iron reinforced regolith concrete modular dwellings that were stacked on top of each other on the inner surface of the spacecraft but beneath the inner surface common area.

Self Contained Space Station Habitat and Interstellar Spacecraft (16 miles in diameter x 48 miles long)

The living spaces consisted of a house and landscaping, but to make it more livable, ultra high definition holographic images were projected to simulate various earth scenes. These scenes were enhanced by simulated sounds and smells that made the experience lifelike. For instance, a Pacific Ocean view would be accompanied by the sound of seagulls, the crashing of waves onto the shore, and the smell of salt air. To make the experience more interesting, other holographic scenes, like mountains, lakes, and golf courses could be selected by changing the program and foreground landscape. But best of all, android-type robots were assigned to each living space to perform maintenance and other routine tasks.

Each living space had access to elevators that would transport their inhabitants to the top level common area , or to a high-speed magnetically levitated train (maglev) system. The levitated train system was located beneath the common area and provided transportation to any grid location. Alternately, the inhabitants of each living space had the use of a helium-3-fueled electric car that could be used on the common area roadway system. After traveling to a destination, the car would self-park at the nearest under surface parking area. To begin the trip back, the car would self-deliver to a designated area. To provide maximum usage, and minimum wait times, cars were exchanged as necessary.

Besides scenic roadways, the common area had lakes, forests, rivers, streams, hills, meadows, golf courses, shopping centers, scenic parks, restaurants, and towns. The towns consisted of office buildings, churches, schools, hotels, hospitals, universities, shops, recreational areas, and sports stadiums. At both ends of the common area, several large lakes and wilderness areas, including snowcapped mountains, were constructed for boating, fishing, camping, hiking, and various winter sports. In addition, several wild animal preserves were provided.

Days and nights were simulated, including sunrise and sunset, and the weather conditions were regulated. At times, even snow and rain were provided for variation, including a mild wind. Day and night sky simulations were also

provided in each of the living spaces by using light emitting diode (LED) arrays embedded in translucent ceilings.

Epsilon 1 was a self-contained habitat where everything was recycled. Some of the living spaces were used for growing crops, fruit and nut trees, grazing animals, animal and food processing, fisheries, power generation, communication, sewerage treatment, air and water processing, fertilizer processing, factories, storage, and for the previously mentioned car parking areas.

The thick-walled outer shell of the satellite/spacecraft habitat was designed to protect its inhabitants from such things as meteors, solar flares, and cosmic radiation. It was also immune to earth’s problems of hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, ultraviolet radiation, volcanoes, tidal waves, a rising ocean level, and magnetic field reversal. In addition, with onboard sensors, it was capable of maneuvering away from asteroids, comets, and potentially damaging space debris.

Because Epsilon 1 had a very large common area and 1.6 million dwelling spaces, there wasn’t sufficient time to develop and complete the common area or furnish all the dwelling spaces before leaving for Epsilon Eridani. Therefore, one of the tasks of the inhabitants, during the 110-year trip, was to finish the remaining work. In so doing up to 2.5 million people could live on board and design their living spaces according to their own tastes and preferences.

During the expected 222-year round-trip time interval additional Epsilon 1-type satellites were being developed near Earth to eventually provide living spaces for all of earth’s growing population, thus allowing planet Earth’s restoration to a pristine condition to be visited for recreation and historical purposes.

Aside from solving Earth’s overpopulation problem, the orbiting satellites were considered by most people to be very desirable from the point of view of providing a very luxurious and safe lifestyle. And since construction materials and helium-3 energy were now robotically derived directly from asteroids and the gaseous planets, building costs, and electric power were essentially free. The only constraint was the time required for construction.

Epsilon 1 was equipped with a space elevator** which transported people and cargo to and from earth. The space elevator was launched from Epsilon 1 to Earth, while in geosynchronous orbit, and served as the space elevator’s anchor.

To avoid the consequences of breaking the ribbon cable, several countermeasures were developed. Among these was the location of the planetbased station in an ocean environment, which allowed movement to avoid micro meteors which might damage the cable. Another was two climber modules that performed inspections and repairs to the cable and could be used, with rocket power, to grab the loose end of a broken cable in the event of failure. enger and cargo carrying space planes also served to provide a means of escape if necessary.

The transportation vehicles consisted of four enger/cargo space planes. Each plane could carry 120 people and about 100 medium-sized animals or 60 tons of cargo. While on earth, the plane was capable of vertical takeoff and landing, while jet engines provide power for atmospheric flight. While in space, the plane converts to rocket power for maneuvering. Using a total of twelve planes, 480 people and animals, or 240 tons of cargo, could be transported to Epsilon 1 in one twenty-four-hour day. Electromagnetic launch rings were used to expedite the loading of nonliving cargo during the seven years needed to board the 250 thousand human inhabitants, cargo, and animals.

Epilogue

If you want to know what Jason and his crew found on the earthlike planet and the subsequent events that took place, look for my next book that will probably be entitled Epsilon Eridani. The main point I am making here is to describe how Earth’s humans might accommodate a growing population by living in space and eventually traveling beyond our solar system in multigenerational spacecraft. To achieve traveling at a speed capable of reaching Epsilon Eridani in only 110 years takes a lot more imagination because accelerating and decelerating to and from 1/10th the speed of light would take an enormous amount of fuel. If we do eventually travel to the stars, we will probably need some form of antimatter propulsion system.

As you know from reading this chapter, my main purpose was to show that overpopulation of planet Earth need not be a problem. With the potential for housing 30 trillion people in luxurious living conditions in space, I don’t think we need to worry about overpopulation any time soon. However, we do need to worry about the shortsightedness of career politicians who can’t see beyond the next election.

Chapter 24

Final Comments

This book describes a forty-year plan that makes the United States energy independent, while at the same time assuring that the Social Security program will be sustainable. Spin-off benefits include economic growth for the United States, a sustained fresh water supply, and hope for the world’s impoverished population.

The world as we know it cannot be sustained without an abundant supply of energy, and reliance on fossil fuel is not the answer. To prepare for the future, the United States needs to have an all-out effort to use its domestic fossil fuel resources in the short run, while at the same time hydrogen production systems, advanced renewable energy systems, and nuclear power need to be implemented as fast as possible.

In my first book A Sense of Urgency, I took the approach that hydrogen fuel, made from water, was obviously the wave of the future. After writing the book, I discovered that most people were more concerned about what was going to happen in the next few years and only paid lip service to what was going to happen to their children, grandchildren, and beyond. I found that people cared about eliminating our dependence upon imported oil, but as long as gasoline was available at a reasonable price, they weren’t anxious to do anything to fix the problem. In discussions with friends and neighbors, I found that they were sympathetic with the idea of using hydrogen as a transportation fuel but very few people asked me about the details of how and why it should be done now. The people who were concerned about hydrogen safety were surprised to learn that the Hindenburg accident was not caused by hydrogen and that the lack of radiated heat from the hydrogen fire allowed many of the engers to survive. Generally speaking, most people regarded my book as being too technical for them to understand even though I tried my best to put my thoughts into plain language that most nontechnical people could understand. I put cartoons at the beginning of each chapter to emphasize the point that I wanted to make, and most of the technical discussion was put in the appendix, which had the humerous title A Cure for Insomnia.

One additional problem that I found with my first book was that it needed to include a message that had an immediate impact on people’s lives. Although the book’s cover expressed the idea of energy independence and economic prosperity, it was too abstract and didn’t have the aspect of urgency that would cause people to stop what they were doing and take action. On the other hand, almost everyone in the United States is affected by rising gasoline prices and by the Social Security program either directly or indirectly. The Social Security contributors are unhappy with the money being taken out of their paychecks that may not be available to them when they retire, while the recipients are concerned that their income will be cut in order to make the system solvent. What I have proposed in this book could be the solution that everyone is looking for. The concept of 50 to 60 million people forming a hydrogen consortium, where their small individual contributions would not only generate enough money to begin the hydrogen infrastructure program, but it would also drive the program to eventual success, especially if the payoff included a substantial lump-sum retirement bonus. To the best of my knowledge, this out-of-the-box concept has never been proposed.

The ideas that I have proposed in this book for building a hydrogen infrastructure have an ulterior motive, which is to help solve the problem of worldwide poverty, hunger, and disease. The “Grand Canal,” various forms of economically producing energy, and the zeppelin can play a major part in solving these problems. By providing an abundant supply of water and electricity to the impoverished, we can begin to establish new world markets and global prosperity. Recycling nonrenewable materials using transportation provided by Jet-stream-powered remote-controlled low-cost zeppelins can make this process a reality. This completely new idea can provide a way of creating jobs and generating income from materials that would have been relegated to landfills.

During the time interval between my first book and this sequel, I continued to do research, which has changed some of my original ideas, especially, about the various forms of energy needed to produce hydrogen. I began to look at

renewable energy in a different way, primarily from the standpoint of combining renewable and nuclear energy. The unreliability of renewable energy and the vast amount of land that would be required led me to invent ways of overcoming these problems. The idea that I came up with was to make renewable energy much cheaper than nuclear fuel. By doing so, the capital cost of a nuclear power plant could be increased to include the capital cost of a renewable energy source “fuel saver.” This idea resulted in increasing the required land area for the nuclear plants but not by a significant amount. If the purpose of the nuclear/renewable energy plant was to produce hydrogen, it could be located in remote regions of the country, where land is readily available. By combining modular nuclear plants into large wind turbine pedestals or to supply waste heat to improve the efficiency of an OTEC system had the advantage of reducing the overall cost of both systems. By using zeppelins to transport the hydrogen to populated regions of the country – flying via riverways —, the need for expensive and unsightly pipelines and electric transmission lines could be eliminated.

Also during the time interval between my first book and this sequel, I did more research into the thermo-chemical process for producing hydrogen fuel. Although this process appears to be considerably cheaper than the electrolysis process, it is not clear that both systems might eventually complement each other and be cost competitive, especially when renewable “fuel savers” are used.

In addition, I began to look more closely at the Sky Wind Power’s Autogiro concept of generating electric power in the Jet-stream. At first, I thought that tethering a power generating machine at 25 thousand feet was impractical. But when you consider the increased power and consistency of Jet-stream winds, it made me want to solve the problem. Since power from the wind is greatly enhanced with higher wind speed— wind speed cubed — the effect is dramatic. As previously described, a 3-megawatt wind turbine could generate 30 megawatts in the Jet-stream and have a much greater capacity factor than the ground-based version. While the land-based 3-megawatt wind turbine generates about 0.75 megawatts at a 25 percent capacity factor, the 30-megawatt Jetstream version could have a capacity factor of almost 80 percent. In other words, the 30-megawatt version operating in 70 miles per hour winds could generate

enough additional megawatts in 80 to 90 miles per hour Jet-stream winds to make up for downtime.

At the end of this book, I entered into some dangerous waters by trying to predict the future. To my way of thinking, trying to predict the future is like putting a puzzle together without knowing the picture on the box. When I try to assemble a puzzle, I begin by separating the side pieces and corners to establish a border or frame for the picture. Even if I didn’t know what the picture on the box was, I would interlock pieces that generally had the same background color. Upon completion of the border, I would then separate the interior pieces into groups that appeared to have the same object represented on them. I would then try to fit these lesser number of pieces together until subcomponents of the picture started to emerge. At this point, if I see maple trees and a sky with clouds, I know that it is an outdoor scene that was developed in a temperate zone summer season. If I see a familiar object like a house, I can begin to surmise what the overall picture might be and what it was definitely not.

The fictional story in the last chapter is the basis for my next book, but I have included it here to illustrate a potential long-term future for mankind on planet Earth. The point being that doom and gloom scenarios of overpopulation and lack of resources are, in my opinion, unfounded. In fact, if self-contained space satellites were to be converted into spacecraft with advanced propulsion systems, the destiny of Earth’s humans might be to explore and eventually populate the universe. Perhaps they would leave Earth’s orbit in groups of one hundred or more just as the wagon trains did in the nineteenth century.

The fictional story looks beyond the ideas that I have presented in this book. Assuming that we don’t blow ourselves up in the meantime, or have the Earth’s population destroyed by a large asteroid impact, our future will definitely be tied to space. When I learned about the potential of helium-3 fusion power and the vast quantities of materials and fresh water contained in the asteroids, it seemed obvious to me that our hand-wringing concern for human overpopulation is unwarranted. That doesn’t mean to say that we can delay having an aggressive

space program that deals with these long-term objectives. I worry about my grandchildren’s future, and I don’t mind doing without some things that I could have now so that they will have an inheritance that might help them through tumultuous times. In keeping with this viewpoint, perhaps we humans should invest more of our tax dollars in “mining the sky” to help insure the future of our offspring. With the helium-3 and platinum from the moon, we might in fact have a space program that is self-sustaining.

Living in a large rotating satellite and taking periodic vacations on the surface of a refurbished planet Earth sounds pretty good to me, especially if my satellite habitat was like the one that I describe in this book. Imagine no earthquakes, no volcanic eruptions, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no tsunamis, no floods, no ultraviolet radiation, no threat of dangerous or undesirable animals or insects, no drought or lack of water, no wars, and minimal threat of nuclear annihilation. It may not be utopia, but it sure is close.

Appendix

The Rest of the Story

In this appendix, I will elaborate on some technical and nontechnical details with regard to the subject matter contained in this book. Included will be a more detailed discussion about all electric battery-powered cars and my proposed car of the future—the hydrogen-powered triple hybrid. Here is what will be presented:

1. Low-Cost Mass Production

2. Solar Photovoltaics

3. Hydrogen Electrolysis

4. Hydrogen Transportation

5. Hydrogen Liquefaction

6. Hydrogen Storage

7. Hydrogen Delivery

8. The Battery Car Revisited

9. The Triple Hybrid Car

Low-Cost Mass Production

Since low-cost mass production is the crux of how my energy scenarios can be achieved, I believe it’s necessary to explain this concept in enough detail so that the reader can attach some sense of reality to the cost estimates that I have proposed.

the Model T Ford that Henry Ford introduced at a low enough cost so that the average person could afford one, including his employees (he paid them a relatively high wage). His plan was to mass-produce, via an assembly line, a car that costs much less than one that was individually built by hand.

Henry Ford vertically integrated about 70 percent of the parts and subassemblies (i.e. he made 70 percent of his own parts and subassemblies) of the Model T into his factory to keep costs as low as possible. To further reduce costs, as the story goes, Henry asked one of his suppliers to ship their parts in a box that later became the Model T’s running boards.

Ford Motor Company was heavily vertically integrated for a long time before it became clear that they could not keep up with the technology changes that were

occurring. When you have an evolving product that is undergoing technological changes, it is sometimes better to let the free market work on your behalf. For instance, the design of hydraulic systems for power steering and brakes, automatic transmissions, and other changes were best left to people who specialized in the development and manufacture of these devices.

As the automobile became more complex with more and more part or subassembly suppliers, the outside purchasing of parts became a costly problem. The first method in dealing with this problem was to have multiple suppliers who would bid their costs down. As a result, since most suppliers were not sure of their production requirements, they stored large quantities of inventory to make them responsive to changing demands (and this was reflected in the price). Furthermore, these suppliers were hesitant to invest in high-volume tooling and robotics which further raised the potential cost of their product. In addition, the automobile manufacturer had so many models and options on each model that purchasing agents often would pay high- prices for some parts to be available in time for assembly (further increasing costs). And again, to avoid part shortages, the automobile manufacturer housed large inventories that, in some cases, were made obsolete because of design changes. And all of these store houses of inventory had to be, in some cases, heated, lighted, maintained, and possibly air conditioned (further driving up costs).

When the Japanese automobile manufactures introduced, Just in Time manufacturing, they were able to produce lower-priced, higher-quality automobiles, with more options than their counterparts in the United States. Ironically, it was an American, Edward Deming, who showed the Japanese how to do it (his words fell on deaf ears in the United States—sound familiar?). Without getting into this subject too deeply, let’s try to summarize what Deming proposed:

1. Form alliances with fewer suppliers and have parts or subassemblies delivered to the automobile assembly plant one or two days before they were scheduled for use (i.e. just in time).

2. Have part and subassembly suppliers require that all of their suppliers follow the just in time methods.

3. Use statistical process controls to insure that parts and processes were duplicated precisely every time (no quality inspection needed after the part, process, or subassembly is completed)

4. Each worker on a part, process, or subassembly inspects their own work and stops the assembly line if there is an instance of nonconformity.

5. When the assembly line is stopped, the workers, engineers, purchasing agents, and possibly the part or subassembly supplier have a meeting to determine the root cause of the nonconformity and make appropriate corrections (therefore, no need for rework of assemblies after they came off the line—therefore, more factory space and less labor).

6. Minimize process set-up time through the use of quick change dies.

7. Use the available factory space, from low inventory, and no final inspection and rework, to expand the production capability of the factory, thus reducing costs.

There is more to it than is being described here, but with this background, you may understand how low-cost mass production can be achieved and why my cost estimates are realistic. With a standardized product that doesn’t undergo continual change, like a wind turbine or modular nuclear reactor, vertical

integration can be maximized. If we would agree to build a standardized product for ten or more years, the cost of making that product will be dramatically reduced. In fact, if the vertical integration went as far back as the mined materials and automated manufacturing was maximized, the resulting cost would be amazingly low. How about trying this for on-site manufacture of renewable energy machines? After all, once they are built, there is no additional fuel cost.

Solar Photovoltaics

Solar energy is the conversion of sunlight into some form of energy. But the average person is probably confused about how this is done and how much of the sun’s energy can be obtained from a given surface area.

Just as with a wind map, measurements of the sun’s energy have been made for different parts of the world. These measurements are expressed as “insolation” values. For instance, when you look at the wind map, you will notice that the southeastern portion of the United States does not have very high-sustainable winds; however, the “insolation” values in the south east are high relative to the high wind areas—like North Dakota. For comparison, the “insolation” value for Miami Florida, where the wind energy is low, has a yearly average of about 5.50 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day where in western North Dakota, where the wind energy is high, the average yearly “insolation” value is about 3.68 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day.

“Insolation” values are the measured energy from the sun over a period of time. For an evaluation, let’s assume the average energy for a year since this best determines the amount of energy that can be expected on a repeatable basis for a given area. Therefore, let’s begin a wind versus sun comparison in western North Dakota. To determine the maximum sun energy in a square kilometer, we need to multiply the North Dakota “insolation” value (3.68) by 1,012,082 square meters per square kilometer which equals 3,724,460 kilowatts-hours per square

kilometer per day. Now we need to divide by 24 hours per day which results in 155,186 kilowatts of average energy per square kilometer of land area. At first glance, it looks like solar energy is a great idea. But wait a minute, we now need to determine how much of the available sun energy we can collect and convert into electricity. So let’s discuss efficiencies.

Current “thin film” photovoltaics range in efficiency from between 12 percent, on the low end, to 17 percent on the high end. However, as previously mentioned, almost 30 percent can be achieved with the previously mentioned 3D approach. Higher efficiencies can be achieved but require the use of exotic materials such as gallium arsenide or indium selenide, that are predicted, in low volume, to cost about one hundred times more than mass-produced amorphous silicon cells.

Based upon an optimistic 30 percent efficiency, the maximum power output per square kilometer in western North Dakota is 46,560 kilowatts of average energy per square kilometer of land area (155,186 × .30 = 46,560). However, there is still a glitch. First of all, we cannot use 100 percent of the available land area, and, second, we need to further derate the output energy to for a dilution of the “insolation” value.

Let’s assume that we can use 60 percent of the available land area, because of installation, service access, and other factors. Then because the measured “insolation” value assumes that the collector is facing directly toward the sun and doesn’t include times when the sun is rising over the horizon or sinking below the horizon, a derating factor needs to be applied. An industry accepted derating value of 20 percent is used which also includes such factors as dust interference.

Now let’s multiply the 46,560 kilowatt value by 0.60 to for land usage and by 0.80 to for the “insolation” value derating. The result is 22,400 kilowatts of average energy per square kilometer of land area, in western North

Dakota. Repeating the same calculations for the Miami Florida area which has an average yearly “insolation” value 5.50 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day, the result is 33,400 kilowatts per square kilometer.

Electrolysis

Hydrogen electrolysis is the process of ing an electric current through water to split individual water molecules into their component parts—hydrogen and oxygen. Energy efficiency can range from 65 percent to 85 percent depending on the type of equipment used. This means that as much as 35 percent of the electrical energy that is used to generate hydrogen and oxygen is lost in the process. I have assumed that it will take 55 kilowatt-hours of electric energy to produce one kilogram of hydrogen gas—pressurized to 30 bar (435 psi) and 99.995 percent purity (a condition needed for liquefaction or for use in a fuel cell). Since one kilogram of hydrogen gas contains about 36 kilowatt-hours of energy, the assumed process efficiency equals 65 percent (36/55 x 100 = 65 percent).

There are three currently available variants for electrolytically producing hydrogen from water. These are as follows:

• Alkaline water electrolysis with aqueous potash lye as the electrolyte. The operating temperature is about 80 centigrade (176 F).

• Membrane electrolysis with a proton-conducting membrane as the electrolyte. The basic design is similar to a fuel cell and the operating temperature is about 80 centigrade (176 F).

• High temperature steam electrolysis that uses oxygen-ion conductors as the electrolyte. The operating temperature is between 800 centigrade (1472 F) to 1000 centigrade (1832 F).

Alkaline Electrolysis

Alkaline electrolysis is currently used to provide hydrogen for chemical industry processes—metallurgy, fat hardening, and electronics, in regions where electricity is available at favorable prices. The capacity of this equipment has reached more than 33,000 Nm³/hr (1,254,000 standard cubic feet per hour) at 30 bar pressure (435 psi) and 65 percent to 70 percent efficiency. The equipment and processes used is described in the illustration below:

Typical Water to Hydrogen Electrolysis System

In the 1980s, a number of research programs were conducted with the aim of increasing the efficiency. It was found that plasma electrode activation leads to a significant efficiency increase. More than 80 percent efficiencies were achieved and industrial applications have proven lifetimes of more than 40,000 hours (4.57 years). Also, within the framework of what is called the HYSOLAR project, 85 percent efficiencies have been achieved from fluctuating energy.

Membrane Electrolysis

Membrane electrolysis is used primarily to make small quantities of on-site hydrogen for use as a fuel. A commercial “membrane-type” electrolysis product “HYSTAT,” produced by the Hydrogenics Corporation, is designed to make a kilogram of 99.995 percent pure hydrogen gas at 30 bar pressure or higher using 53.22 kilowatt-hours of electric energy.

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis

High temperature steam electrolysis is currently in the development stage. The process operates at between 800 centigrade (1,472 F) and 1,000 centigrade (1,832 F) and uses a natural gas assisted steam electrolyzer which uses the partial oxidation of natural gas to synthesis gas on the anode side. In this case, no oxygen evolves on the anode side, but oxygen is directly used for the partial oxidation of hydrocarbons. The low electrochemical potential of this “natural gas consuming anode” permits very low-cell voltages and thus a high efficiency.

Hydrogen Transportation

Let’s look at bulk transportation of hydrogen gas via pipeline with conversion to liquefied hydrogen at the end of the line and compare this process with carrying liquefied hydrogen via large-scale zeppelins.

Pipelines

Hydrogen liquid or gas can be transported via pipeline. Since liquefied hydrogen could be transported via pipeline, it suffers from losses due to “boil off,” pumping, and friction (if carried at high flow rates). These losses make pipeline transport of liquefied hydrogen somewhat impractical. However, we can transport some liquefied hydrogen because of its superconductivity benefit. In this transport mode, an economic balance between flow rate and “boil off” will determine how much liquefied hydrogen is transported and not the usage requirement.

Hydrogen gas can be transported by pipeline in a manner similar to how natural gas is transported today. However, natural gas pipelines are generally not suited for conversion to hydrogen gas. Three reasons for this are as follows:

1) Natural gas pipelines are generally made of low carbon steel, which would be subject to hydrogen embrittlement and subsequent cracking when used with hydrogen. Aluminum, stainless steel, alloy carbon steel, or aluminum wrapped in a composite material, would probably be the material of choice for a hydrogen pipeline.

2) Because of its low density, hydrogen gas requires about 3.8 times more pumping energy to propel the same volume of hydrogen gas through the same

size natural gas pipelines; therefore, larger pipelines would be needed to reduce the friction losses and pumping energy. However, larger, more expensive screw compressors would be required.

3) Hydrogen gas pipelines and fittings need to be welded and sealed in a more stringent and controlled manner than has generally been used with natural gas pipelines.

Because hydrogen’s density is about one third that of natural gas, it would be necessary to make the hydrogen gas pipes about 65 percent larger in diameter (because of the diameter squared effect) to transmit the same quantity of hydrogen gas as natural gas. However, the frictional losses for hydrogen would be reduced by about 60 percent, when using the 65 percent larger diameter pipe, because of its reduced ratio of (friction) surface area to flow volume. Therefore, because pumping energy is primarily a function of frictional losses, the required pumping energy would be less for the hydrogen gas. Furthermore, because the piping thickness increases in proportion to the increased diameter, an economic trade off would be needed to determine the optimum piping diameter.

Given this background, we can conservatively say that hydrogen gas can be transported over long distances with the same, or less, amount of energy losses as that of natural gas, but at higher piping, compressor, valving, and fitting cost because of their larger size.

Studies show that hydrogen gas can be transported at 68 bar (1,000 psi) in 915 mm (36 inch) and 305 mm (12 inch) pipelines, with flow rates of 100,000 kilograms of hydrogen per hour and 10,000 kilograms of hydrogen per hour respectively. Extrapolating these numbers to larger pipe systems, we can expect to transport about 400,000 kilograms per hour in a 1830 mm (6 feet) diameter pipe.

One of the side benefits of using large diameter pipes is that the stored hydrogen “buffer” energy in a 3,000 kilometer hydrogen gas pipeline system is about 4.4 days of typical hydrogen consumption (in a hydrogen fueled economy). The stored energy is the amount of hydrogen that could be consumed by letting the 68 bar pressure drop to its minimum transport pressure level.

To determine the cost of a 3,000 kilometer system, we need to first calculate the material cost of five 1,830 mm diameter 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) thick alloy carbon steel pipes (representative of 10 percent of the hydrogen consumed in a hydrogen fueled economy). If we could produce the required alloy carbon steel piping at $0.70 per kilogram, the materials cost alone for one 3,000 kilometer pipeline would be about $2.4 billion.

To determine the installation labor cost, I will use the previously discussed Alaska pipeline as a comparative example. After doing the arithmetic and adjusting for inflation, my estimated labor cost would add about $10 billion to the above materials cost.

Zeppelins

Because hydrogen is light in weight, it is uniquely capable of being transported by air using zeppelins. To understand this better, consider the fact that 1 kilogram of hydrogen is about equal to one gallon of gasoline, and the gallon of gasoline weighs 3.05 kilograms—a three to one weight ratio. However, even in a liquefied form, hydrogen occupies four times as much volume as gasoline of equal energy content, thus making hydrogen more difficult to transport by truck, train, or even by ship than gasoline. With a zeppelin, it is only the weight, not volume, that matters.

Although liquefied hydrogen weighs less than gasoline, a hydrogen tank will weigh more than a gasoline tank made from the same materials. The amount of additional weight for the liquefied hydrogen tank is very dependent on the contained volume and the materials used for construction. For small volumes, the added tank weight could exceed the hydrogen weight by more than 10. However, for very large volumes, the tank weight contribution could be equal to or less than the contained liquefied hydrogen weight. Therefore, since large zeppelins can carry very large volumes, we will assume a tank weight of twice the contained hydrogen weight. The result would then be that transportation of liquefied hydrogen by zeppelin would be about 60 percent of the equivalent energy weight of gasoline—when you factor in the weight of the gasoline container.

Here is where transportation by large-scale zeppelins starts to make sense. Why, because a zeppelin can be made very large, and its lift capabilities can increase very rapidly with increasing size. Without going into a lot of detail, the zeppelin delivery system could cost about 90 percent less than the pipeline system.

Hydrogen Liquefaction

Hydrogen gas has to be cooled to about—235 degrees Celsius (-391 F) to transform it from a gas to a liquid. This requires a multistage refrigeration process that consumes electricity without increasing the energy content of the gas.

To understand the graph shown below, let’s look at the production of 1,200 kilograms per hour (almost 30 thousand kilograms per day, which is similar to our planned central natural gas reforming facilities) and find the ratio of liquefaction energy to the higher heating value (HHV) of hydrogen. This ratio is approximately equal to 25 percent for the best liquefaction methods. Since the energy content of hydrogen (HHV) is about 36 kilowatts-hours per kilogram,

then the liquefaction energy is 9 kilowatts-hours (36 × .25 = 9.0). In other words, the ratio of 9 kilowatt-hours to hydrogen energy content of 36 kilowatt-hours is equal to .25 percent.

The reason for liquefying the hydrogen gas is to overcome one of hydrogen’s biggest problems—volume. Liquefied hydrogen can be used in a manner similar to gasoline, but it still has a volume four times as great as an energy equivalent volume of gasoline. This fact in itself is interesting, in that gasoline contains hydrogen, and it is mostly the hydrogen that burns as a fuel and not the carbon, the carbon leaves the combustion process, mostly as carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, gasoline appears to be one the best ways to contain and store hydrogen. This leads to my belief that there may be a manmade product, in the future, that will store hydrogen on a molecular level such that liquefaction of hydrogen will not be necessary. That man-made product may be carbon “nanotubes.”

In simple , the liquefaction process begins by transforming air into liquefied nitrogen through several steps of compression, cooling, and expansion. Using the liquefied nitrogen, the hydrogen gas is pre-cooled in several steps to about—193 degrees Celsius (-315F) to what is called the Joule-Thompson effect. Further cooling takes place through several compression/refrigeration steps which results in part of the gas stream becoming liquid. The remaining gas is used in the upstream refrigeration processes as a coolant in the condensing part of the refrigeration cycles. During the final stages of cooling, an ortho-para conversion is performed by catalysts at four different temperature levels.

Industrially used liquefaction systems are based upon what is called the “Claude” process—see the Claude system flow diagram below:

Claude system flow diagram

Development is currently underway to improve efficiency to a specific power of 5 kilowatt-hours per kilogram by using magnetocaloric refrigeration processes and shifting the ortho-para conversion to higher temperature levels with the aid of electromagnetic catalysts. However, the conventional “Claude” process is available now and is therefore my selected method; this selection avoids controversy.

Please excuse the technical discussion, but it is provided here with the intent of giving the reader an idea of some of the complexity involved in the liquefaction process. As such, it points out the requirement for a number of compressors (electric motor driven), expansion valves or turbines, and condenser/evaporator heat exchangers, liquid separators, mixing tanks, vacuum devices, and holding tanks. This then helps describe the nature of the machine and some idea of potential cost.

Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the Houdini of all substances; it wants to escape from where ever it is contained. It is also the least dense of all substances which makes its volume very large relative to its weight. This makes for a formidable challenge, to say the least.

As previously mentioned, it is rather interesting to note that gasoline is one of the best ways to store hydrogen. Since, even in liquid form, hydrogen occupies four times as much volume as gasoline with the same energy content. When you consider that liquids are, for all practical purposes, incompressible, it is fascinating to think that at the molecular level, hydrogen’s volume can be reduced to four times less than its liquefied form. Therefore, from a storage standpoint, our goal would be to confine hydrogen at the molecular level in a

manner that approximates gasoline, but allows it to be easily filled and released without changing its chemical form.

Buffering

Buffering is needed to allow hydrogen to be stored when the supply system produces more than the rate of consumption. As previously mentioned, a very long pipeline can store hydrogen by increasing pressure; however, with a zeppelin delivery system, liquefied hydrogen would need to be stored in holding tanks. These possess the potential problem of boil off, but because large volume tanks have a large ratio of volume to surface area, the boil off can be kept to a minimum. Recycling the boil off by refreezing and using the boil off hydrogen for facility power is possible. In any event, production and storage requirements need to be closely controlled to minimize losses.

Strategic Reserve

Currently, the United States has a strategic petroleum reserve of about thirtyseven days. In our hydrogen fuel economy, we don’t need to store hydrogen as a liquid or gas because oil can be stored and converted to hydrogen if needed. However, the oil reserve which is located in four salt mines along the gulf coast of the United States would need to have the capability of reforming oil into hydrogen and distributing it via pipelines or zeppelins to the locations where it would be needed.

As stated earlier, since gasoline or oil is one of the most compact ways of storing hydrogen, it almost becomes impractical to consider long-term storage of hydrogen in a gaseous or liquefied form. Gaseous hydrogen requires pressurization and liquefied hydrogen must be used within a few days because of

“boil off” considerations.

Reforming oil or gasoline to form hydrogen requires steam and a process temperature of 700 to 1000 degrees centigrade (1292F to 1832F). The chemical reaction for gasoline is:

C8H18 + 8H2O (+ heat) 8CO +17H2

If a technological breakthrough should occur in the future, like carbon nanotubes or sodium borohydride, it may be desirable to revisit the decision to strategically store hydrogen as oil or even the need to use liquefied hydrogen in the hydrogen economy. But the nanotube, or other storage medium, requirement to duplicate oil as a low-pressure, low-cost storage medium is far from being a reality.

Therefore, for the strategic storage of hydrogen, the current thirty-seven day oil storage domestic oil reserves is the most prudent and least disruptive method compared to anything in the foreseeable future.

Hydrogen Delivery

In this section, let’s examine how a service station receives and dispenses liquefied hydrogen.

As mentioned earlier, the service station receives liquefied hydrogen from a central processing and dispensing station. For simplicity, we will assume that a central dispensing operation services about fifty service stations within a radius

of about 160 kilometers (100 miles). For further simplicity, we will assume that each service station dispenses about 5,000 kilograms of liquefied hydrogen per day (—one kilogram of liquefied hydrogen is equal to about one gallon of gasoline).

A standard gasoline truck can deliver gasoline with the energy equivalent of 8,537 kilograms of liquefied hydrogen per trip. Since liquefied hydrogen provides 25 percent to 100 percent or more fuel efficiency than gasoline, a 5,000 kilogram delivery of liquefied hydrogen would be equivalent to about 6,250 to 10,000 gallons of gasoline. In my proposal, we will use two trailers for each tractor trailer delivery, and each trailer would carry about 2,500 kilograms of liquefied hydrogen. My idea is to drop off the tanks on each trailer and pick up the empty tanks for refilling at the central station. Each trailer would be equipped with a lifting device which can lift the liquefied hydrogen-filled tank to a vertical or horizontal position. The empty tank would be then lifted, with the same device, back onto the trailer. Since some gas stations are located in trafficcongested areas that will not permit the full-length double trailer system to make deliveries, it’s possible to make two deliveries by leaving the rear trailer at a nearby parking lot and picking it up on a second run—a common practice in Europe. To make the drop off and pick up as fast, and as least disruptive as possible, reserve tanks should be connected and the empty tanks disconnected prior to arrival of the full tanks and robotic equipment could be utilized in this process.

The number of double tractor-trailers, required for each central station, would depend on demand requirements. Since, in this example, each central station services fifty gas stations within a 160-kilometer (100 mile) radius, a maximum round-trip time per vehicle would be about 6 hours (at an average of 64 kilometers per hour—40 miles per hour—for a 320 kilometer—200 mile— round-trip would be 5 hours in addition to an hour for delivery). Therefore, each vehicle could make three trips per day if operated 24 hours per day. If the average double tractor-trailer services one gas station per trip, the maximum number of vehicles required per central station would be seventeen (50 / 3 = 17) —let’s make it twenty to for repairs and traffic delays.

There are many other scenarios for production and delivery of liquefied hydrogen fuels, including production and dispensing of pressurized hydrogen gas. But, as you can see, because of the close proximity of the central stations to the gas stations, there could be a distinct advantage over gasoline, because when gasoline pipelines are not available, the gasoline needs to be delivered from the refineries to the gas station, so fuel delivery costs could be higher for gasoline. Furthermore, when you consider that oil has to be delivered to the oil refineries from the oil reservoirs—usually by means of huge oil tankers—it is not hard to imagine how domestically produced liquefied hydrogen, delivered from central stations around the country, could have a distinct economic advantage.

One question that you might have is will the government, oil companies, and gas stations make as much money dispensing hydrogen versus dispensing gasoline? The answer to this question is not clear, since up to 100 percent less fuel will be consumed with hydrogen vehicles. Therefore, an adjustment may need to be made with regard to federal/state taxes and profit per kilogram of hydrogen sold. However, since the complete implementation of the hydrogen fuel infrastructure will not occur for twenty to forty years, and with the United States consumption rate increasing, a tax and profit adjustment may not be necessary.

Battery Cars Revisited

Is the all electric battery-powered car the solution to our future transportation fuel problem? If so, one might argue that hydrogen is not necessary and everything that I have said in this book about hydrogen fuel for transportation vehicles can be ignored. The premise being that a future low-cost advanced version of the lithium-ion battery can be used to power automobiles and trucks. Moreover, the power used to recharge the batteries could be derived from wind, solar, and nuclear, thus no need to use fossil fuels or hydrogen.

Let’s imagine a world that has run out of fossil fuels and the all electric batterypowered vehicle is the primary means of transportation. Ops, I almost forgot jet airplanes and container ships. OK, let’s use hydrogen, made from water, to power jet engines and large ships. I believe that many people have made this assumption but have not thought about the unintended consequences. On the other hand, if they have thought about the consequences and find them to be acceptable, it would, in my opinion, be a form of social engineering that should be a cause for concern. The unsuspecting public needs to know what they are going to get!

First of all, to power the electric car revolution, the United States would need to increase its electric generating capability by adding about 500 one-thousandmegawatt power plants. If all of these plants were nuclear, many would need to be breeders to avoid running out of nuclear fuel before fusion nuclear reactors become available. Generally speaking, the nuclear plants would need to be located near populated regions of the country to avoid long-distance transmission line losses. As mentioned in my hydrogen-generating scenarios, the nuclear plants can be centrally located far from earthquake fault lines, potential tsunamis, and large population centers. If we are counting on wind and solar to supply all the required electricity, the resulting land area would be enormous.

Now let’s revisit what I have said in Chapter 2—about the Nissan Leaf—and see how the average person would be affected. The current version of the Nissan Leaf has a mileage range of about 70 miles at 55 miles per hour and a 7-hour battery charge time. At highway speeds, the 70-mile range is greatly reduced. For many people, this speed and range is enough to get them to work and back with overnight recharging. Let’s forget for a moment that this car currently sells for about 70 percent more than its gasoline counterpart and is more than 600 pounds heavier, and requires a $15,000 battery replacement at about 100,000 miles. This five enger car could be quite adequate if available at the right price and a 2-hour fast charge at a fueling station might also be acceptable to many people, especially if charging stations are readily available. As you might imagine, pick-up trucks, vans, and SUVs will require larger batteries that will result in less miles per equivalent gallon. If you assume that lithium-ion battery costs will eventually become acceptable, consider this. About 75 percent of the

cost of current lithium-ion batteries is in material cost, and one material in particular—cobalt—is in worldwide short supply (Re: Argonne National Laboratory Study for the Department of Energy (DOE)). Since the price of materials is based upon supply and demand, the future price for these batteries could actually go up. However, to be optimistic, let’s assume that the United States DOE objective of $300 per kilowatt-hour. This would make the Leaf battery $7,200 rather my assumed price of $15,000. At this new battery price, the Nissan Leaf would only cost 30 percent more than its gasoline counterpart but would still require a $7,200 battery replacement (minus a possible recycling kickback) at about 100,000 miles. And as I mentioned before, the battery performance will degrade over the 100,000-mile life. This means that it will not hold as much charge, which reduces its mileage range. Fast charging also has a detrimental effect on battery life and charge capability.

Perhaps at this point you are a little dismayed because in a recent news broadcast, you probably heard an expert claim that the cost per mile was much less for an all electric vehicle than a gasoline-powered vehicle. In fact, at $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, the cost per mile would be only $0.0343 and double that if $0.20 per kilowatt. Wow! That would be impressive since at $4 per gallon of gasoline for 30 miles per gallon Honda Civic, the cost per mile would be $0.13. However, the expert isn’t telling the whole story. Since the owner of the Nissan Leaf had to pay much more, the additional cost of the vehicle tends to outweigh the fuel cost savings, even with a reduced battery cost.

The real issue is why would anyone choose the Leaf with all of its obvious inconveniences? Of course, there will be a number of people who believe that by buying the Leaf, they are helping to save the planet. However, as mentioned before, if the Leaf were powered by a coal-fired power plant (almost half of all electric power generation in the United States is fueled by coal) the difference in air pollution would favor the gasoline-powered Honda and definitely favor a natural gas-powered vehicle. At best, a coal-fired power plant can reach an efficiency of 50 percent. This means that only half of the energy contained in the coal is used to produce electricity. So even with an 80 percent efficient use of electricity in the electric car, the net use of energy is only about 40 percent, whereas a clean burning gasoline engine operating at 30 percent efficiency will

generate less pollutants into the atmosphere.

So you’re not yet convinced that the all electric vehicle is doomed, let’s consider a practical example. Let’s take the example of a family of four, who take a trip from Alexandria Virginia to Disney World in Orlando Florida. If they had a gasoline-powered vehicle that had a 30 mile per gallon capability, the 2,000-mile round-trip would cost about $270 in gasoline at $4 per gallon, by adding two nights of motel accommodations at $80 per night, the total travel cost would be about $430 in addition to wear and tear on the family car. In contrast at $300 per person for airline tickets (and that is very cheap), the cost would be $1,200 in addition to a rental car that could add $400 or more. If they chose to travel on a high-speed rail system, the cost could be less but still much more than traveling in the gasoline-powered family car. Moreover, the family might return to find that the electric car that they left at the airport or train station has depleted its charge. In my humble opinion, there would be much fewer family trips to Disney World and other vacation destinations. This could have a devastating effect on the tourism industry and on ing businesses like restaurants, thus putting people out of work.

Then what about a power outage during a storm or flood? Perhaps, evacuation routes from hurricane prone areas should have walking paths. Even if the battery cost and longevity were improved to an acceptable level, the range and charge time issue would still exist. The range could be improved by adding more batteries. The problem, however, is that as good as the lithium-ion battery is regarding weight per power output, they are still going to be heavy. When comparing the Nissan Leaf with a comparable Honda Civic, it weighs about 630 pounds more, and the Leaf doesn’t include an internal combustion engine. If we tried to double the range by doubling the battery pack, the size and weight of the car would be much greater which would have the effect of reducing the expected range and cause the car to have an even more sluggish performance. A rule of thumb is that for every 10 percent of added weight, the miles per gallon of fuel decreases by about 10 percent. Using this logic, if we doubled the number of batteries by adding about 1,500 pounds of batteries and battery structure to the Nissan Leaf, its total weight would increase by about 40 percent. Thus, instead of doubling the mileage range of the vehicle, we would gain about 60

percent. This equates to increasing the 55 miles per hour mileage range from 70 to about 112 miles and causing the already small five enger car to weigh about 4,870 pounds.

Then what about the unintended consequences of having an all electric batterypowered vehicle infrastructure? Consider this, did you know that long haul tractor trailers generally go about 1,000 miles between refueling stops. If we reduce this to about 100 miles and a 2-hour stopover to refuel, how would the price of food and other commodities be affected? Then, what about families who currently take 2,000-mile vacations like the one described above? What kind of refueling stations could accommodate a continuous stream of cars needing a 2hour recharge every 70 miles or less? Perhaps these families could reach their destinations by traveling on electric trains or fly. However, this would mean a lesser number of motels, gas stations, food stops, and other accommodations along today’s highways, with the result being that many people will be unemployed and towns abandoned. Because of the inconvenience of dealing with a 70-mile or less-range and a 2-hour refueling stopover, most people will probably choose trains and airplanes for long-distance travel. This form of social engineering would result in a vast increase in the number of trains that require overhead electric lines, and a greatly expanded amount of air traffic. Of course, the rental car businesses would need to expand their operations as people arrive at their destinations without a car. To lessen the cost burden of renting a car, the electric car social engineers probably envision a vast increase in available public transportation, thus depriving the travelers of the convenience and freedom that they once had.

As an engineer, I am reluctant to say what can and cannot be done, but if you look at what currently exists, it would appear that the new batteries have a very long way to go. Operation in freezing temperatures needs to be addressed. Explosions resulting from fires or short circuits, rapid degradation due to fast recharging, degradation due to exposure to extreme temperatures, and reduced life due to too many charging cycles, reduced mileage range due to running heat, air conditioning, and other electric accessories are a list of my concerns. In addition, issues like making sure that first responders do not run out of battery charge during an emergency or become endangered as a result of battery

explosions also needs to be addressed. Need I say more!

The Triple Hybrid

While I may have made a strong case for abandoning widespread use of the all electric battery-powered car, I am not making a case for abandoning the electric hybrid, especially when the internal combustion engine part of the hybrid can use hydrogen fuel. To make my point, let’s examine two types of electric hybrids —the Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius based upon a 200,000-mile ownership:

Chevy Volt

• 12 gallon gasoline fuel tank • 60 miles per gallon—combined gasoline and electric (EPA rated) • 379 miles range (EPA rated) • 80 horsepower gasoline engine ( unleaded) • 3780 pounds curb weight • Seating for 4 • 10.6 cubic foot cargo space • 100 miles per hour top speed • 0 to 60 mph in 8 seconds • $10,000—16 kilowatt hour lithium ion battery / 100,000 mile life (estimated— no previous experience)

• Ave. selling price $40,000 w/o taxes or fees plus a $10,000- 100,000 mile battery replacement • 4 hour battery charge time • Total cost per mile at $4.20/gal high test = $0.58

Toyota Prius

• 11.9 gallon gasoline fuel tank • 41 miles per gallon—combined gasoline and electric (Consumer Reports) • 487 miles range (EPA rated) • 80 horsepower gasoline engine ( unleaded) • 3045 pounds curb weight • Seating for 5 • 21.6 cubic foot cargo space • 112 miles per hour top speed • 0 to 60 mph in 10.4 seconds • $2,500 nickel metal hydride battery / 200,000 mile life (estimated based upon known previous experience) • Average selling price $25,000 w/o taxes or fees • 0 hour battery charge time • Total cost per mile at $4.20/gal high test = $0.33

The Chevy Volt uses an internal combustion engine to drive an alternator and electric motors when the battery is depleted. The Toyota Prius uses an internal combustion engine to direct drive the car and battery charging alternator when the battery is depleted. The Chevy Volt;s alternator adds more than 700 pounds to the overall vehicle weight even when the reduced weight of the lithium ion battery versus the nickel metal hydride battery is considered. The alternator and expensive lithium ion battery drive the cost of the Volt up by about 60 percent. As a result, the cost per driven mile is considerably more than the Prius. To me there is no comparison – feature for feature —, since the nickel metal hydride battery in the Prius will last the lifetime of the car. But let’s not dismiss the Volt just yet, since with some modification we could have what I call a triple hydrogen hybrid.

Granted, my proposed triple hydrogen hybrid is fictitious and a figment of my imagination, but here it is anyway. The idea is that we can take advantage of the efficiencies of using a battery and a hydrogen fuel cell. Since the battery is about 80 percent efficient, the fuel cell is about 60 percent efficient, and the internal combustion engine (using hydrogen fuel) is about 40 percent efficient we could electronically allocate each power source for the most optimum circumstance. Here is a very rough idea of how these cars might compare:

Triple Hydrogen Hybrid ICEG (kw’s) 30 Lithium-ion Battery (kw-hrs) 4 (10-15 city miles/day) Hydrogen fuel cell (kw’s) 30 Inverter (kw’s) 60 Wheel motors/brakes (kw’s/ea.) 15 Frame/body/accessories same (less weight) Fuel tank (eq. gallons) 6.0 Miles per equivalent gallon 70 0 to 60 mph (seconds) 8.0 Range (miles) 420

Chevy Volt 60 16 (40 city miles /day) n/a 60 15 same 12.0 60 8.0 379

Top Speed (mph) Cargo Space (cubic feet) engers Plug-in Home battery charger

100 15.0 5 no no

100 10.6 4 yes yes (approx. $2,500)

Cost ($)/Weight (lbs) Cost ($)/Weight (lbs) ICEG ($50/kw) 1,500/700 3,000/1400 Lithium-ion battery ($625/kw-hr) 2,500/200 10,000/800 Hydrogen fuel cell ($80/kw) 2,400/200 0/0 Inverter ($90/kw) 5,400/300 5,400/300 Wheel motor/brakes ($100 ea.) 400/150 400/150 Frame/body/accessories 8,000/1,000 (incl. labor)* 12,000/1,500 (incl. labor) Fuel tank 1,000/150 100/20 Total 21,200/2,600 30,900/3,780 Selling price $27,000 (high volume) $40,000 (low volume) Total cost per mile ($4.00/eq. gal.) $0.17** $0.28**

* Lighter frame weight from use of aluminum, titanium and reduced strength requirements ** Does not include 220 volt charger or 100,000 mile battery replacement costs—battery replacement cost would be much less for the triple hydrogen hybrid*

Because of the reduced weight of the internal combustion engine/ generator (ICEG) and smaller battery pack, the vehicle structure can be made less robust which in turn saves weight and cost. Obviously with a reduction in the price of future lithium-ion batteries both vehicles would benefit. In the meantime, the triple hydrogen hybrid compares very well in of features, performance, and cost per driven mile with a gasoline-powered car. Moreover , if the fuel cell price reaches the price of the ICEG, we can dispose of the ICEG and use a 60kilowatt fuel cell and make an even more cost-effective car.

My Background

My degree is in mechanical engineering from Northeastern University in Boston Massachusetts. Upon graduation, in 1964, I was commissioned a lieutenant in the United States Army Corps of Engineers and served in Vietnam.

In August 1966, I began my career with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. During the first 17 years, my experience was primarily in nuclear steam generator development. In the last four years, of these 17 years, I was promoted to section engineering manager and later, department engineering manager for a $40 million Atomic Energy Commission (presently the Department of Energy— DOE) contract to develop a steam generator for a “breeder” nuclear power plant. My department also performed government contract studies to develop solarpowered steam generators and fluidized bed coal gasification boilers.

In 1982, I transferred to the Thermo King Corporation (a subsidiary of Westinghouse and later owned by Ingersoll Rand) to become engineering manager for the Truck Transport Refrigeration Equipment Department. During the early portion of my employment with Thermo King, my engineering group developed a new line of truck refrigeration products for the world market. I was later given responsibility for design engineering activities at Thermo King Factories in Barcelona, Spain; Hamble, England; and Prague, Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia). Before retirement in 2001, I was responsible for the successful development of a new line of refrigeration equipment for the Japanese market and the development of a new alternator powered refrigeration system for the European market.

I have written numerous technical papers for international conferences and for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and currently hold seven patents. I was also the chairman of the Florida West Coast Section of

ASME in 1974−1975 and ed the State of Florida professional engineering examination in 1975.

I am also the author of a book entitled A Sense of Urgency. Which is subtitled A Hydrogen Plan for Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity, and Clean Air.

References

Bongaards, Don, A Sense of Urgency, Xlibris, 2009

Whitney, Gene, Behrens, Carl E., Glover, Carol, U.U. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, Congressional Research Service, 75700, R40872, 2011

Lavelle, Marianne, The New Oil Rush, U.S. News and World Report, Money & Business, April 24 2006.

Bossel, Ulf, Baldur Eliasson and Gordon Taylor. The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak? Oberrohrdorf, Switzerland: Ulf Bossel, 15 April, 2003.

Keith, Geoffrey and William Leighty. Transmitting 4,000 MW of New Windpower from North Dakota to Chicago: New HVDC Electric Lines or Hydrogen Pipeline. Draft report for Environmental Law and Policy Center, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Synapse Energy Economics, 28 September 2002.

National Research Council. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2004.

Braun, Harry W., The Phoenix Project: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen

(www.phoenixproject.net), Sustainable Partners International, Phoenix AZ, 2000.

Doty, David F. A Realistic Look At Hydrogen Price Projections. Doty Scientific Inc. 23 May 2004 www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price. pdf.

Kondoh, J. et al. ‘Electrical energy storage systems for energy networks.’ Energy Conservation and Management, Vol. 41, No. 17, 2002.

Donalek, Peter. Advances in Pumped Storage. Presented at Electricity Storage Association Spring Meeting, Chicago, IL. 21 May 2003.

Vyas, Arant D. and Henry K. Ng. Batteries for Electric Drive Vehicles: Evaluation of Future Characteristics and Costs through a Delphi Study. Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, 1997.

DOE Hydrogen Program, III.0 Hydrogen storage sub-Program Overview, FY 2011 Progress report.

Hirsch, Robert L., Bezdek, Roger H., Wendling, Robert M. Peaking Oil Production: Sooner Rather Than Later? Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2005.

Boyle, Godfrey, Renewable Energy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Deffeyes, Kenneth S., Beyond Oil, New York: Hill and Wang, 2005.

Taylor D.Sc, and Hugh, S. Industrial Hydrogen, New York: Knowledge Publications, 2006

Romm, Joseph, J., The Hype About Hydrogen, Washington: Island Press, 2005.

Magenn Air Rotor System (MARS) Executive Summary, Magenn Power Company, 2012.

HySTAT-A Hydrogen Plants, Changing Power … Powering Change.

Hydrogenics Corporation Catalog, April 2006.

Tyndall Center, Hydrogen Economy Power Point Presentation, 2006.

Mazza, Patrick, Hammerschlag, Roel, Carrying the Energy Future—Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation, Seattle: The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental, Assessment, June 2004.

Sheffield, Charles, Forward, Robert, Kondo, Yogi Bruhweiler, Fredrick, Moore, John, and Dyson, Freeman. Interstellar Travel and Multigenerational Spaceships. Burlington, Ont: Apogee Books.Glister, Paul. Centauri Dreams. New York: Copernicus Books.

Lewis, John. Mining the Sky. New York: Perseus Books.

Inhofe, U. S. Senator James, The Greatest Hoax. WND Books, 2012.

Scientific American Magazine, September 2006.

Forbes Magazine, June 2006.

Http://www.thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/19/2018135/solar-photovoltaics3d-solar-cells 2012

Http://www.eco-action.org/dt/oilfut.html 2012

http://www.en.iags.org/futureofoil. html 2012

http://www.en.transportation.anl.gov/batteries/index.html 2012

http://www.eprints.utas.edu.au/2781 .html 2012

http://www.en.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.html 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_River 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United States) 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Production 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochemical-H2-465.aspx 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics-of-new-nuclear-powerplants.aspx 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Stream 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel-Tunnel.html 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California_Edison 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Fiber 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resources 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_Fracturing 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Gas_Prices 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Volt 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-conventional_energy 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Superior 2012

http://www.en.nucleartourist.com/basis/costs.htm 2012

http://www.Toyota.com/prius 2012

http://www.automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/civic-naturalgas 2012

http://www.Linde-le-de/process_plants/hydrogen_syngas_plants/gas_products 2012

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/lithium-ion 2012

http://www.Marketwatch.com/story/Silverado-power-announces-three-solar 2012

http://www.en.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclear Power 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochemical_cycle 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachella-valley 2012

http://www.en.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress.09/ii_g_2_packard.pdf 2009

http://www.en.engineeringtoolbox.com/wind-turbine-power-calculator_d319html 2012

http://www.en.facsaboutsolarenergy/solar--efficiency 2012

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synfuel—9/6/2012

http://www.nanotechnologies.qc.ca/projets/hydrogene 2012

http://www.en.saharawind.com/HVDCenergytransfer.htm 2006

http://www.nrel.gov/nv/documents/25249.html 3/14/2006

http://www.en.thirdworldtraveler.com/oil_watch/Oil_Reserve 2006.

http://www.en.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis. 2012

http://www.en.safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrogen.html2006

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryld.aspx.html 2006.

http://www.apricus-solar.com/html/insolation_levels_usa 2006

http://www.natureswarriors.org/pipeline.php 2006.

http://www.humbolt.edu/-serc/pemelectrolysis.html 2006

http://www.supercables.com/Applications/App_visions.html2012

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Types_of_wind_turbines.html 2012

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar 2012

http://www.gkss.de/Themen/w/wtpwassrstaff/eSpeicher.html 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate 2012

http://www.en.hydrogennow.org/facts/pipeline/leighty/wec-Sydney-pdf 2006

http://www.en.minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2006/mcs2006.pdf 2012

http://www.geography.about.com/cs/censuspopulation.html 2012

http://www.en.hydrogen.energy.gov/presidents_initiative.html 2006

http://www.en.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil-gas/petroleum/analysis 2012

http:/www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/a1tab.html 2012.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/5atab.html 2012

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process 2006

http;//www.en.usmm.org/libertyships.html2012

http://www.en.ece.umr.edu/links/Energy_Course 2012

http://www.en.bergey.com/Maps/World.Wind.Med.htm 2012

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/18 2012

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/expertise.html 2012

http://www.en.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells 2012

http://www.en.mnforsustain.org/windpower_cato_part1 2012

http:///www.en.universityof phoenixstadium.com 2008

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/space_habitat 2008

http://www.zercustoms.com/photos/Experimental-Honda-Home-Energy-StationStation-1V/Honda 2012

http://www.world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/station/ 2012

http://www.en.hydropac.com/HTML/hydrogen-compressor.html 2012

http://www.automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx 2012

http://www.automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/exterior.aspx 2012

http://www.en.online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577261341008387240.h 2012

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org 2011

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor 2011

http://www.bing.com/images/search? q=Nissan+leaf_and_view=detail_and_id=1F5D087634175157 2012

http://www.paultan.org/bmw-hydrogen-7 2012

http://www.en.hydrogen.energy.gov-pdfs-progress06-ii_a_8_aaron.pdf 2006

* TWA flight 800 from New York to Paris, in July 1996, went down because of a spark created by wires in the fuel compartment. To solve this problem, currentday aircraft-fuel tanks have oxygen extracted from them, so that ignition cannot occur. If hydrogen had been used in the TWA fuel tank it would have burned and not exploded. ** The space elevator is a concept that was proposed in the twentieth century to transport people and cargo into space. It requires a very strong ribbon cable and a very large space anchor that is in geosynchronous orbit with a point on earth. During the late twenty-first century, using nano-technology, chemist Ivan Moore developed the required strand length and strength to make the concept possible. On board, modularized helium-3 nuclear fusion electric power allowed two climbers to propel themselves along the 62 thousand miles of cable length without the need for an external power source.