Ed Reid

Ed Reid

If this program is successful in assuring that China and India use clean, advanced energy technologies to support their rapid economic development, it will accomplish more than the Kyoto Accords, with far less economic pain, and establish the basis for additional progress going forward.

There has been much talk of limited Uranium supplies however U235 is available in enourmous quantites in the earths crust and the earth's oceans and with fast breeder technology is also renewable.

The best of all worlds. Surely it is time the "self-proclaimed " environmentalists recognised that facts about nuclear power rather than continuing to perpetuate the fiction.

There is nothing inherently wrong with conservation - a great idea. There is also nothing wrong with renewable energy supplies - except the scale of deployment is woefully inadequate and capacity factor is nothing to write home about.

We have a clear choice. Either we continue to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels and kill thousands of miners every year in the proces of extraction or turn to the worlds cleanest, safest and most reliable energy technology.

Malcolm

Design Science Revolution - This is something we genuinely need. Really...

... but where are today's Einsteins, Edisons, Firestones, Teslas, etc... ???

They understood science and entrepreneurship... delivering real products and solutions. After a trillion dollars spent on high/low energy research since the 60's (after the development of nuclear pwr), Joe & Jane Sixpack still have to burn fossil fuels for the majority of their energy consumption???? (Think about what we are getting for what we are spending).

How come we are beating up the fossil fuel/utility companies for keeping us warm and out of the dark while we are waiting for the guys in the white coats to come up with the utopia source(s)?

Why is it the oil/gas/utility companies' fault? They produce O&G&Electric ... that is what they are. Petroleum Engineers do not do wave power. Do you go to a dentist to have your foot pain cured? Complaining about O&G&Ute companies is no more productive than griping that your dentist didn't cure your gout.

BTW.... Why do the folks that refuse to lower themselves to do directed research get a pass? Maybe they should get at least an equal level of open questioning to discover what THEY are about to CONTRIBUTE to the solution and how it is a good return on the TAXPAYER'S dollars that we are investing and entrusting to them. (It is amazing the number of 4 year old research websites that Google can find that promises "breakthroughs" in 'only' two more years of funding :^(

You that are so critical of current energy companies...where is your alternate energy start up? Where is your investment in alternative energy?

Got some? Good!!! Do some more.... Don't just talk the talk ... Walk the walk. I have planted 150+ trees, invested my hard earned family cash in utes generating from hydro & wind energy (divs for retirement) and would love to work for another energy company that is really generating value that the market will really vote with their dollars for.

If you are a researcher ... develop something that will really help Joe/Jane Sixpack...or quit and support your family by delivering real value.

Our Country is in a world of hurt. I want to see us off foreign oil as much or more than anyone.

It is time for a change....

Let go....

Bruce

In the meantime what we are going to need foremost is water. By desalinating the world's oceans we will have bettter health in third world countries, better soil for agriculture in coastal countries, and the necessary abundance of water to obtain hydrogen for fuel and oxygen to improve the air we breathe.

The industrial revolution and the combustion engine in only 100 years has changed civilization like no other time in the history of mankind. We need to return to what the definition of mankind really can be, and include our earth with us.

As a society we are not even using the incredible science provided to us by the likes of Einstein, Tesla and many others. If we cannot even use that what makes you think we will use the output of any new great scientitific discoveries.

Where are the magnetically levitated high speed trains for mass transport - why are we STILL using diesel engines for hauling our trains about. Tesla and many great engineers subsequently (the Late Professor Eric Laithwaite to name just one) showed us how and we are not even close to using that technology.

Einstein showed us how to get energy from the nucleus yet we STILL burn coal, oil and natural gas. What total stupidity is that.

We aleady have in our possession all of the great engineering advancements necessary to solve the worlds energy and transport problems. Right here right now.

What IS needed is politicians who can implement the changes necessary. Unfortunately there are none. Take a good look around the political landscape of all western countries. There are truly none.

All we have are bafflegabbers who look good on TV. Get the right haircut and sing the prescribed song. While that persists and we -the great publics of the world - continue to vote them into (and out of) office by the quantity of weasel words they use to get out of actually doing anything useful then we will never solve this problem.

In our society the Winston Churchills, the Dwight D. Eisenhowers - they just do not exist...replaced by political opportunists that we have entrusted to run our increasingly technological society about which they know nothing.

When the real energy crunch comes we will have only ourselves to blame.

Malcolm

There are two main categories of developers today. The research facilities that make the news are typically publicly funded and pressured from above to continue the research as long as possible. Most often, they are even "supported" by local utility companies with clear conflict of interests. This support is always portrayed in a good light, however it just allows the utility companies (or oil companies in other research areas) to drive the direction of research toward "only the viable" projects. Those would be the non-threatening ones or the ones that support future profiteering. Private investors continually make the mistake of using energy expert opinions (gathered from energy companies) to investigate various technologies which further extends the reach of these so-called experts.

The other type of developer is the self funded, lone, understaffed guy with a more solution oriented goal. These systems are generally designed to eliminate the monopolistic tendencies of big energy, big oil, big transmission and big anything. When these guys go looking for money, they're met with immediate skepticism at every turn. I've personally gotten turned down by every type of funding I can think of multiple times prior to even giving a presention. The consensus seems to be that it's public knowledge that it can't be done and that it's too small of a scale to make a difference. Look over comments above and you'll find the same thing. So these developers spend all their effort in funding searches and when they do find interested parties, they hit another brick wall. Potential investors only want to 'go public' or sell of the company so they can get out in 3-5 years. This usually raises the original five hundred thousand startup to the 5 million range. This means the business will have multiple times it's original operating costs and becomes less attractive. There is nearly no chance of these companies remaining a privately held company that just sells products. They now have to profit enough to pay for investors who want high ROI (on $5M now) at a time when the company is having growing pains. It's a shame that there aren't any of these people spouting that we need to do this or that who are willing to actually put some of their money at risk.

As for spending government money on programs, my state, Nebraska, only advocates conservation and ethanol and brags how their FOUR wind turbines are expected to get 40% capacity factor. The last grant I qualified for here was given to a crafts startup because she was making baskets out of 'renewable' reeds. The large research facility we finally got was 'assisted' by the local utility company who promptly placed their staff in the major board posiitons because of their financial support. Go figure! And my governor told me to my face, "What can I do, I'm only the governor." Nuff said.

No, the real problem is who is controlling the money (intentionally or unintentionally). You want to make a real difference, you say? Help the little guys compete with the professional research centers.

Oh and this planet-flip issue? It sounds like an Australian conspiracy to steal our White Christmasses.

If China proceeds with the installation and startup of 1 large scale coal generator per week through mid-century, as is currently envisioned, without permanent fixation or sequestration, all of the solar water heaters, Toyota Priuses, compact fluorescent bulbs and good intentions in the US will not stop the increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Rather, they will cumulatively represent a small yellow spot in the snow.

I have no problems with any of the technologies you mention. The US is already reducing CO2 emissions on a per capita basis, though population growth is still causing total US CO2 emissions to rise slowly. Certainly more is possible, if more is necessary. However, it would seem that a little prioritization is in order.

If you believe that stabilization and ultimate reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is necessary, the steps you suggest are trivial in the overall scheme of things. They are more of a distraction than a strategy. Failure to deal with the implications of economic development in China and India, as well as the rest of the developing world, is like failing to recognize that the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.

There is a perverse version of the "Golden Rule" which states that: "he who has the gold makes the rules." While I can easily understand that you would like to do your R&D with other peoples' money by your rules, life and economics do not work that way.

One of the activities I engaged in during my career was funding and managing (on behalf of my utility employer) R&D projects conducted by "the self funded, lone, understaffed guy with a more solution oriented goal." They also tend to be difficult to manage and nearly impossible to pry their inventions away from when it comes time to take the next step. They would generally prefer that the sponsors just "throw money over the fence" and then leave them alone. That doesn't work with private funding; and, it also doesn't work with government funding. The federal government is far more lenient with individual inventors than private funding sources.

You throw out terms like "profiteering" and "clear conflict of interest" which I am sure do not endear you to potential sponsors who look at their obligation to themselves or their shareholders as investing in opportunities to earn a reasonable profit if successful. I suspect, if you were successful, you would expect to earn a reasonable profit as well, but would not describe your activity as "profiteering". Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyone who invests money in RDD&D projects is "placing money at risk" by definition. The greater the perceived risk, the greater the rate of return necessary to permit a reasonable opportunity to recover the investment and earn a reasonable return on the investment. If you have a problem with the return expectations of utility investors or other private sector corporate investors, try seeking funding from "vulture capitalists".

The biggest issue in RDD&D funding, in my experience, is not insufficient funding for the R&D phase, but rather insufficient funding for the demonstration and deployment phases. This is especially true, but not unique, in the case of independent or small company inventors who lack the facilities and resources to build and field test sufficient numbers of prototypes; and, to fund deployment and market development for the resulting equipment.

Many inventors truly believe that their invention is the greatest thing since pre-sliced white bread, the hula hoop, the pet rock, or the "better" mouse trap; and, that the public will "beat a path to their door" to get access to their latest invention. They are almost always tragically wrong.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan

It is obviously impossible to know the answer to your question. However, there are numbers of independent inventors being funded by a variety of sources today, because those sources believe that there is a reasonable prospect that their funding will produce a desired result. However, I suspect few of the independent inventors refer to their funding sources as "profiteers" or acuse them of being "conflicted". Investing in RDD&D is lots of things, but it is rarely if ever charity.

Ed

Two guys in college, Larry and Sergi visited one of their college professors 10 minutes before he was to leave for the airport, in an attempt to set up an appointment. Being short on time, the professor simply asked if they wanted to pitch it in the car or just take the check right then. They took the $150K check and started a little company with a funny name. I recently heard that Google was worth in the neighborhood of $150B and both Mr. Page and Mr. Brinn are on the world's top 10 richest people list while their company is arguably the most innovative company the computer industry has seen yet.

As I said before, there are many other examples showing that someone who buries himself in the market might actually know how to succeed in said market. From a 'solve the energy crisis' standpoint, a business plan like those would be better than making all your money trading assets in mergers and acquisitions to sell off debt. It seems that big energy is only interested in the status quo by the appearance of researching solutions and by gaming the public perception that only they can save us. Maybe the investors should bear some responsibility to hunt for viable solutions instead of the other way around.

Inventions are often truly wonderful things, but are virtually valueless (to both the inventor and society) until they become products. It is the transition from successful prototype to successful product that is extremely difficult to achieve working with many independent and small company inventors.

I understand that many independent and small company inventors are worried about losing control of and/or losing ownership of their invention. In almost all cases (in my experience), these fears are either vastly overblown or unfounded, though none the less very real.

One of the most difficult hurdles in the "march to market" is convincing the successful independent inventor that nothing in his success as an inventor has any bearing on his ability to become a successful manufacturer of his invention.

Absolutely true. Anyone creative enough to invent something truly novel and needed is a fool if they haven't planned around this throughout the entire refining process.

"I understand that many independent and small company inventors are worried about losing control of and/or losing ownership of their invention. In almost all cases (in my experience), these fears are either vastly overblown or unfounded, though none the less very real. "

Obviously you've never sat on the little guy's side of the table. Every suggestion offered to them has a path to losing direction control or the whole company itself. Key phrases to look for are open ended exclusive licenses, patent ownership by those that pay for it (contrary to patent law), multiple board member seats by those with no related experience, statements like "our managers are business savvy in M&A" or "managing any product takes a good manager regardless of which industry it's in" and numerous others. Sorry, but nothing inherantly says that their management team is better than the existing team. You must be thinking of the star-eyed inventors on the 'American Inventor' TV show.

"One of the most difficult hurdles in the "march to market" is convincing the successful independent inventor that nothing in his success as an inventor has any bearing on his ability to become a successful manufacturer of his invention. "

This is true of many such deals but they really have nothing to do with each other. Any investor worth his salt should not only research the technical aspects of the invention, but research the professional skills of the personnel in the small company. Most of the "successful inventors" bring high level professional experience and the people they've partnered up with usually bring more high level skills in a wider range of areas. Why else would they have been brought in? Each area needs to be appraised separately.

A good friend of mine is a highly paid insurance broker with a well known name. He's been 'placed' on the board of nearly a dozen companies and says that he barely knows what most of them do, even though he collects a handsome salary from each. He clearly knows he's just a vote on a certain side should the need arise.

We've just become too short-term-profit oriented in this country. No one wants to be a long term partner in a successful business because there's too many opportunities for a large gain from a 3-5 yr deal. I just find that so hypocritical given the thousands of do good organizations that only shuffle (shovel?) information around.

"You must be thinking of the star-eyed inventors on the 'American Inventor' TV show."

No. I was not aware of the show; and, I will probably not watch it in the future. Been there; done that; wore out the tee shirt! I am thinking most specifically about 5 individuals (most now retired, but nameless none the less), most with PhDs in their respective technology areas, with whom I worked extensively as a technical liason for the financial sponsors. I sat on their side of the table only in negotiations with potential licensees of their technologies, again representing the sponsors. (The group actually included 3 Stirling RDD&D projects, as well as IC engines, steam turbines, absorption and adsorption heat pumps, etc.) I have also been on the inventor's side of the table, but not as an independent or small company inventor. Suffice it to say that the scars are healed. My youth and exhuberance have morphed into age and guile.

At least you are not a believer that "a good manager can manage anything". That has got to be one of the dumbest analyses ever to emerge from the consulting community. I've watched that up close and personal; it ain't pretty.

It is abundantly clear that you have a weak knowledge of radioactivity and the risks and rewards of it. Nuclear fuel is not the most toxic material known to man as you erroneously claim. FAr from it. There are hundreds and hundreds of chemicals that will cause your death much more rapidly and much more quickly than any exposure to nuclear fuel....many of which we use in industrial processes on a routine basis.

Hydrogen Flouride (used in the manufacture of Teflon by the hundreds of tons) is deadly. Chlorine Gas - deadly if inhaled even in small quantities., Mercury, Lead heavy metals - All very very much more toxic to humans than nuclear fuel. Do you recall the Union Carbide disaster at Bhopal - an industrial CHEMICAL exposure that killed thousands. These materials are far and away more toxic and used in vastly greater tonnages than used nuclear fuel. The risks of dying from the latter latter are infinitessimally small and I believe you know that.

It is also (dare I use it) an inconvenient truth that many populations live in naturally radioactive areas of the planet and have been shown to have LONGER lifespans than those not so exposed. These naturally occurring exposures are many times greater than those from stored nuclear fuel. By that argument radiation may well be good for you. Your bones are radioactive (Potassium 40) courtesy of Mother Nature and you are continually being bombarded by radiation in amounts massively greater than any that is produced from stored nuclear fuel.

The great advantage of nuclear fuel is that the hazard decays away to nothing. The hazards of chlorine, flourine etc never ever decay away.

So you really need to support what you say with facts. Because what you have said is completely not true.

If you want to learn the facts I can direct you to numerous scientific web sites that will provide you with the real hazards and risk levels associated with nuclear power. They are nowhere near the magnitude portrayed by you above. Not even close.

Peter maintains there is abundant energy available naturally to provide all our energy requirements indefinitely. It is probably a true statement and I do not disagree with it at all. The Sun alone puts out more energy per second than mankind has used in its entire existence on the planet. Great but the problem is most of it misses the earth - which is also really great because if it did we would be toast..burnt to a crisp in a nanosecond.

It is also true to say that there is enough hydrogen in Lake Superior to power the earth forever. Availability is not the problem. The problem is getting it out and using it. If you spend more energy getting it out than the useful energy used that is a waste of time....and therein lies the big problem with just about all of the alternatives - wave power being an exception.

As I have said on other threads but will say it again...powering a magnesium or aluminium smelter or a bessemer converter to make steel or any of the hundreds and hundred of large scale industrial operations that use electricity - I do not see how you can do that with solar panels on roof tops. I do not see how you can power a big city like New York or Chicago,. Yes I can see how one can run a house that way...Todd McKissik has some great ideas along those lines --- but most of us live in cities and those cities need large amounts of electrical energy that cannot be reliably provided by the so called "alternative". They really are not any sort of alternative unless you want to live in a medieval society. simply opumpinmg the ater for a city the size of New York requires huge Megawatts (My guess is in the 10 to 50 megawatts just to pump all the water up to all the high rise buildings) - maybe someone can give me an accurate number.

If it made any engineering or scientific sense we would already be doing it. The fact that we are not says it all. And it most definitley makes no economic sense at all.

Does any one know how much energy it takes to make a 1 KW solar PV panel?My guess is that it is more than the device would produce for its entire lifecycle. That makes it - like many other of these schemes - an energy sink.

Malcolm

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

Malcolm, Here's a site that has some of the info you're looking for. Namely how to power big cities and industrial users from solar. It's all based in Europe because the US doesn't really recognize CSP yet. The interesting links are "CHP and Industrial Processes", "Trans-CSP" and "Med-CSP". Their projection for large arrays in North Africa and 20 HVDC lines to send it to Europe is 5.5 eurocents/kwh by 2030 of which 20% is the transmission cost. I'd also add Geothermal and some tidal projects to the reliable category. Add the existing nuclear to this mix and we should be able to substantially reduce our fossil fuels.

My experience is all related to licensing technology to existing manufacturers, rather than setting up and funding manufacturing start-ups. That is generally a venture capital function, with which I have no experience. I wouldn't be surprised that there are some venture capital types lurking here who might be able to answer your question. Essentially, the answer probably comes down to the venture capitalists' valuation of the current state of the technology, the expected investment required going forward, and the inventors' ability to move the technology forward through field test, market test and product launch. I suspect the answer is very situation specific.

However, I have seen even DOE come into an ongoing program and suggest that all previous program funding be ignored in determining the basis for cost sharing; that is, "We're willing to fund you because of what you have already accomplished, but we're not willing to give you credit for it in negotiations." As the representative of one of the long term funding parties of the program in question, I discovered how short a fuse I really have that day. (Answer: quite short.)

The second source these guys use is 'experts in the field'. Where do you think they hunt for them? Yep, utility companies and big research organizations. You can guess what that opinion says. It's no different than the limited attention they receive in this forum. "DG is a toy not worth the effort and it's more expensive than central generation" predominates here too. Without offering a commercially ready and final priced system, there's just no convincing these guys.

In my case, all of this happens before the technical and economic aspects are even considered. I'm sure you remember saying similar comments. ;) So my question to the forum is: Is this the change in "Design Science" that we really need and if so, how can we accomplish it?

The problem is that the private sector won't seriously play in this area because without carbon taxation, one cannot make a business case for an alternative energy strategy, except perhaps for some niche applications. I won't actually say it's impossible, but the case is harder to make, and funding is that much harder to obtain.

I won't say it can't be done, but those that do it (Ballard and Ovshinksy come to mind) are more akin to P.T. Barnum than T.A. Edison, and have produced similar results as a consequence. (Maybe we need a huckster training camp for would-be inventors....)

That leaves public funding, a.k.a., the government. So it's a political problem, not a design problem. The problem with public funding are all the strings and agendas attached. Note the billions wasted on hydrogen and now the billions wasted on ethanol, even though neither make any sense.

On a brighter note, consider PHEVs. They've been around for awhile, but the campaigning efforts of a single person (Felix Kramer) was able to put them on the radar and even get funding allocated to them at the national and state levels. So truthfully, one can't say the system doesn't work. It can be worked. It's just a different skill set.

As I stated in the article, US Climate expert James Hansen also argued last week that we stop building any new coal-fired generation, the worst CO2 polluter. As current coal power plants reach their economic useful life, replace them with renewables throughout the region first. If system reliability is still an issue, then add combined cycle gas units.

Regarding the sufficency of renewables to power larges cities and industry -- GENI is currently researching (and will report on) the history and present day electrical infrastructure of 5 nations that power most all of their needs using renewables: Norway, Iceland, Brazil, Canada and New Zealand. Hydro is the dominant resources with geothermal augmenting in both Lceland and New Zealand. Given the renewable energy potential of: solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, and ocean -- our hypothesis is that numerous other nations could make the transition with sufficient political will and investment.