Bones' Clean and Free Energy Blog

COVID 19 Lockdown: The Death Knell Of Coal?

2020-06-15T13:00:00.000-07:00

Given that the percentage of coal in the British energy mix fell to zero percent during the two month lockdown, does the COVID 19 pandemic spell the death knell for coal fired power plants?

By: Ringo Bones

As of April 10, 2020, the share of coal in Britain’s electrical mix fell to 0-percent according to data from Drax, an electrical power generation company, after the island’s coal fired power plants were shut down in response to lower demand for electricity. It was once thought that people staying at home and using more electricity would mean an overall demand across the country, but it didn’t turn out that way. It seems that commercial and industrial customers use electricity magnitudes more that folks staying at home plugged in on the internet.And Britain is now off coal for two months and counting.

Power generating companies say that the cost of setting up wind turbines and solar are now at a tipping point that they are now making a better fiscal sense than good old coal. In Australia, an aging coal fired power plant was demolished – Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria - because wind and solar are now more cost effective. And private investments going into coal fired power plants are only growing in Mainland China and India. Could the COVID 19 lockdown be the best thing that ever happened to our environment?

Sulfur Hexafluoride: Clean Power Generation’s Dirty Little Secret?

2019-11-22T10:55:00.000-08:00

Often used in science shows to lower the pitch of the human voice, is sulfur hexafluoride the clean power industry’s “dirty little secret” because it is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?

By: Ringo Bones

Ever seen those science shows on TV – now mostly on You Tube – where the presenter uses a gas called sulfur hexafluoride to lower the pitch of their voices like the opposite of what helium does? Well, unfortunately, sulfur hexafluoride unbeknown to many of us, is a very dangerous greenhouse gas – as in it possesses 23,500 times the atmospheric warming power of carbon dioxide and could exacerbate the effects of global warming. Atmospheric scientists had found out that concentrations of sulfur hexafluoride in our atmosphere had been increasing during the past five years. But given it is a very potent greenhouse gas, why is sulfur hexafluoride relatively widely available that science show presenters can casually use it in a demonstration to lower the pitch of their voices?

Due to the recent rush to wean our reliance on fossil fuels in industrial electrical power generation – namely wind turbines, sulfur hexafluoride is a necessity when it comes as fire suppressant in large-scale electrical distribution systems – i.e. high capacity circuit breakers and relays. Given that the alternatives are more damaging to the ozone layer – like the chlorofluorocarbon based Halon –or prohibitively expensive when use in the scale we currently use – i.e. the inert gas argon, it seems that the electrical power industry must now find ways to minimize the leaking of large amounts of sulfur hexafluoride into the atmosphere. Worst still, like most petrochemical derived plastics, sulfur hexafluoride doesn’t break down easily in nature.

Given that the electrical power industry now has notice on the potential problems posed by unnecessary leaking into the atmosphere of sulfur hexafluoride, the due diligence doesn’t solely fall on them. Back in the 1990s, sulfur hexafluoride was used to fill the cushioning bubbles of running shoes and who knows what other consumer products, making a renewed regulation of sulfur hexafluoride throughout the various industries somewhat of an uphill battle. Maybe science show presenters must now find other more earth-friendly alternative gas to be used in demonstrations to lower the pitch of their voices. Maybe the argon gas production industry could pitch in?

Converting Gasoline Powered Classic Cars Into Electric Cars: The “Greenest” Move Ever?

2019-04-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

It reduces carbon dioxide generation and minimizes the environmental impact of end-of-life disposal, does converting your classic car to an electric car the “greenest” upgrade you can make ever?

By: Ringo Bones

Back when Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was still doing its run in the movie theaters, critics of the so-called electric car were very busy stating the fact that even though they don’t emit carbon dioxide during their commute, they do have the same carbon footprint as a gasoline or diesel powered car during their initial production. But what about converting a much-loved gasoline or petrol powered classic car to one that runs on electricity? Would it be the most environmentally move one can make ever? I mean it avoids the eventual disposal of a classic car to some scrap heap and also turns it into a driving machine that produces virtually zero carbon dioxide during its commute.

Matthew Quitter of London Electric Cars recently got press attention after one of the classic cars that he successfully converted to run on rechargeable batteries - a 1953 Morris Minor Series 2 – was admired not only for its beauty, but also of its true-blue “green credentials”. In his Vauxhall based company, Matthew Quitter had managed to convert various quintessentially British classic car models to run on rechargeable batteries, from classic Minis to Land Rovers.

On average, it takes 3-months of shop work to convert the average petrol-powered car to one that runs on rechargeable batteries. And even the modifications made by Quitter’s London Electric Cars can easily reverted back to petrol I bet nobody would ever go back given the advantages one gains in the conversion. Zero carbon dioxide emissions aside, a classic car converted to run on rechargeable batteries and dedicated electric motor produces on average three times as much torque than its original petrol-powered engine version. And when it comes to running costs, such modified cars are currently exempt from London’s congestion tax, making them the ideal city car. Given such benefits, I wonder if Quitter’s London Electric Cars already has clients who want their Lancia Stratos, Alfa Romeo Carabo and other classic supercars converted to run on rechargeable batteries.

World’s Longest Electric Car Trip: Coming of Age For The Electric Car?

2019-04-09T16:29:00.000-07:00

With an adventurous Dutchman’s 60,000-mile journey recent completion in Sydney, Australia, has the coming of age for the electric car finally arrived?

By: Ringo Bones

Dutchman Wiebe Wakker’s amazing feat of traveling 60,000 miles (95,000-kilometers) via electric car reminds me of those automotive pioneers during the early part of the 20^th Century who drove early production models of the Model T and similar early gasoline powered vehicles in trips that stretched thousands of miles to prove that the automobile is a reliable form of transportation. With the advent of climate change and “peak oil”, Wiebe Wakker doing his part in a bid to prove the viability of electric vehicles in tackling climate change, his name will undoubtedly be now associated with the early automobile pioneers.

The tree-year trip was done on a modified Volkswagen Golf that Wakker nicknamed “The Blue Bandit” across 33 countries in what he said was the longest-ever journey by electric car. But Wakker’s three-year electric car “odyssey” is also, so-far, the longest documented electric car trip. The three-year trip from the Netherlands to Australia was funded by public donations from around the world, including the electricity needed to charge the Blue Bandit as well as food and a place to sleep. Wakker drove across a variety of countries and climatic conditions that included Turkey, Iran, India, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia with the route determined by the prior offers he received on his website before the trip began.

Wiebe Wakker’s choice to opt for a modified Volkswagen Golf makes a lot of engineering sense because even in its original gasoline-powered form, the VW Golf is known for its excellent power-to-weight ratio and in its unmodified form was often known to beat 1970s and 1980s era Corvette supercars in a quarter-mile drag race when driven by a driver of sufficient drag-racing skills. According to Wakker, if the VW Golf remained unmodified, it would have consumed 6,785 liters or 1,800 US gallons of gasoline to complete the epic three-year journey.

Wakker’s modified VW Golf can travel 200 kilometers on a single charge, with Wakker saying that he spent just 300 US dollars on electricity, much of it in the remote desert Outback of Australia. Wakker’s raison d’être of his epic trip was to change people’s opinions and inspire people to start driving electric by showing the advantages of sustainable mobility. Wakker also said that “if one man can drive to the other side of the world in an electric car, then EVs (electric vehicles) should definitely be viable for daily use.”

The Tesla 100 Megawatt Lithium Ion Battery: The Future of Carbon Neutral Power Generation?

2017-12-03T02:02:00.001-08:00

Completed in less than 100 days, does Elon Musk’s 100-megawatt Tesla Lithium ion battery the future of dispatchable renewable energy power generation?

By: Ringo Bones

The Tesla 100-megawatt lithium ion battery located in Jamestown, South Australia is the world’s largest so far – m9ore than 3 times larger than the previous record holder in Mira Loma, California. Constructed in partnership with the French renewable energy firm Neoen, the Tesla 100-megaawatt capacity Lithium ion battery stores the energy generated from the neighboring Hornsdale Wind Farm which is owned by French renewable energy company Neoen.

Tesla’s Elon Musk promised to build the 100-megawatt Lithium Ion Battery within 100 days of the contracts being signed at the end of September 2017 or the company would hand it over to the South Australia state government for free. Completed way ahead of schedule, it went online at the end of November 2017 running at 70-megawatt capacity. Given that the state of South Australia has been plagued by power cuts in recent years, South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill says “South Australia is now leading the world in dispatchable renewable energy, delivered to homes and businesses 24/7.”

With the relatively high initial cost and the initial carbon footprint in its manufacture the only glaring disadvantages, large-scale lithium ion battery energy storage systems seems to be the way forward in current carbon neutral energy generation as a solution to where to store the unused energy generated by a typical wind farm. With its all-electric truck being rolled off a month before, it looks like Elon Musk’s Tesla has established itself as the leading player in the global clean energy production and transport.

Coal and Crude Oil On the Way Out?

2016-11-19T23:33:00.001-08:00

Given the revelations at the annual UN’s COP22 meeting in Marrakech, are coal and crude oil on the way out to be replaced by renewable energy sources?

By: Ringo Bones

Maybe the American president-elect Donald J. Trump should pay close attention to the “revelations” of this year’s COP22 climate conference held in Marrakech which shows that renewable are increasingly getting more economically viable and coal is on the way out because more and more developing countries are rejecting its use due to the harm it can do to the environment offsets any profit gained. Maybe president-elect Trump should offer America’s coal industry alternative jobs instead.

International Energy Agency representatives and industry analysts during this year’s COP22 Conference in Marrakech have shown figures that, if current trends continue, in the subsequent decades, renewable could become more economically viable than coal and crude oil due to China and scores of African states choosing to adopt renewable energy infrastructures for power generation. The only fossil fuel that could remain economically viable in the subsequent decades is natural gas – that is if the environmental downsides of fracking are solved.

Ever since China has adopted renewable energy sources big time since 2005 and the country’s increased impetus to adopt renewable energy sources in the wake of the air pollution threatening to spoil the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the current economies of scale has driven coal and crude oil less economically viable in comparison to large-scale wind turbine and solar power installations. Look like environmentalists around the world could get the most of what they want and, sadly, America’s coal industry could die an ignominious death from an environmentalists’ perspective.

Coal Seam Gas: Not Environmentally Friendly?

2016-01-31T07:08:00.000-08:00

Despite its scientifically proven low-carbon credentials, is coal seam gas extraction far from environmentally friendly due to its tendency to cause groundwater contamination?

By: Ringo Bones

The energy firm Santos in New South Wales, Australia was picketed back in January 28, 2016 by local farmers due to its coal seam gas extraction schemes contaminating the local farmland’s groundwater source, but the energy firm’s “environmental impact” was already a concern almost two years ago. Back in March 24, 2014, leaks of water containing high levels of radioactive uranium from coal seam gas wastewater pond operated by energy firm Santos in New South Wales put the spotlight yet again on an industry already wracked by controversy. Most concerns over coal seam gas have to date focused on “fracking” – fracturing deep rock strata to get gas in coal seams – but as the incident shows, waste produced by coal seam gas wells and brought to the surface is another major environmental issue.

According to the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority, the March 2014 incident resulted in the contamination of the groundwater aquifer downstream of the leak that tested 20 times the acceptable levels of uranium for drinking water. This is concerning given the long timescales and effort involved in groundwater clean-up and the fact that the region affected is an area of recharge for the Great Artesian Basin.

The type of wastewater that resulted in groundwater contamination in this incident – called “produced” or “co-produced” water – is generated in large quantities by all coal seam gas wells and it is usually of poor quality, containing potentially harmful levels of salts, radionuclides, metals and other contaminants. It appears that in this case such water was inappropriately stored in a leaky dam, allowing it to infiltrate and migrate into the underlying aquifer.

The only viable way to rectify this is to use reverse osmosis to remove the contaminants and release the treated water into local streams but the method can be potentially cost prohibitive in some situations. Some contaminants – such as boron – are harder to remove and are retained in the treated coal seam gas extraction produced water. In some cases, methane can also remain in the water after it leaves the treatment plant, adding concerns of “fugitive emissions” given that methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. And this methane in the water has resulted in scores of sensational videos uploaded to You Tube where homeowners’ tap water catching fire after a lit match is brought close to a turned on faucet highlighting the environmental concerns of fracking.

Are Diesel Engines More Efficient Than Gasoline Engines?

2015-09-26T05:55:00.000-07:00

With the recent Volkswagen emissions measurement scandal, are diesel engines really more efficient than gasoline engines?

By: Ringo Bones

Ever since German engineer Rudolf Diesel patented his diesel engine, the industrial world was quick to embrace it with open arms given that your typical diesel engine burn about 25-percent less fuel in comparison to a gasoline engine of similar horsepower rating, not to mention that diesel fuel, as a byproduct of crude oil refinement, is around 4 to 5 times cheaper than gasoline when a barrel of crude oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 12 gallons of diesel fuel when it is refined. And given this “ energy utilization efficiency”, diesel engines by their very nature only produce a quarter of the carbon dioxide produced in a typical gasoline engine – which is now of paramount importance in our increasingly climate change conscious world. But sadly, diesel engines are inherently way dirtier than gasoline engines when it comes to oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions.

The row over whether diesel engines – as in diesel fueled cars and trucks – are really more environmentally friendly than their gasoline engine counterparts recently came to light in the form of the recent Volkswagen emissions measurement scandal where the famed German automaker was caught by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency back in September 21, 2015 when Emissions Analytics, an internal combustion engine / automotive emissions testing lab recently uncovered that the latest models of diesel fueled Volkswagen cars sold in the United States employ a “cheating software” on its electronic engine management system that automatically reduces the engine’s power output and thus the resulting emissions output when it detect that the car is mounted on a tachometer – a device used to statically test the power output and combustion byproducts of cars under test. The Volkswagen “cheating software” allowed their late-model diesel cars to produce up to 40 times less oxides of nitrogen and particulates in a lab testing setting when compared to being actually driven on the road.

Whether the “cheating” is deliberate or not, from a scientific viewpoint, diesel engines still produce less carbon dioxide – a potent greenhouse gas and the primary cause of the ongoing climate change – than their gasoline counterparts, but the oxides of nitrogen and particulates produced by diesel engines also have a deleterious effect on our environment and of human health. The oxides of nitrogen produced by diesel engines can promote the formation of smog and increases the acidity of rain and can also do nasty things to our lungs due to its corrosive nature. Particulates that are the byproduct of diesel combustion can increase anyone with a compromised immune system to catch pneumonia. Diesel engines may be more fuel efficient and produce less carbon dioxide than gasoline engines, but clean they are not.

Stanford University’s Advanced Aluminum Battery: The Future of Rechargeable Batteries?

2015-04-29T05:53:00.000-07:00

With several competing “futuristic” ultrafast-charging rechargeable batteries, is Stanford University’s Advanced Aluminum Battery poised to be the future of rechargeable batteries?

By: Ringo Bones

Technology experts recently quipped that if the advances made in rechargeable battery technology during the past 60 years mirrored that of semiconductors, we would have today rechargeable batteries that could power a mobile phone for a million years on a single charge. Sadly, such technology is still beyond the reach of the current major consumer electronic manufacturers, but recently, prototypes of ultrafast-charging rechargeable batteries that with a minutes worth of charging could either power a mobile phone for a day or drive an electric car for 300 miles are now a prototypical reality.

Lithium ion batteries have been a boon for the modern world in that they’ve replaced the heavier single-use alkaline type batteries in everything from wristwatches to the power supplies of flight control systems in late-model jumbo jets. Unfortunately, these rechargeable cells are already struggling to keep up with our ever increasing energy needs. But a new type of aluminum-ion battery recently developed by graduate students and their professor at Stanford University is not only less prone to bursting into flames than current lithium-ion types but can also be built at a fraction of the price and recharges completely in just over a minute. Best of all, “our new battery won’t catch fire, even if you drill through it” says Stanford University chemistry professor Hongjie Dai.

According to its developers, the Stanford University’s Advanced Aluminum Battery uses a graphite cathode, an aluminum anode and an ionic liquid electrolyte inside a polymer-coated pouch. “The electrolyte is basically a salt that is liquid at room temperature, so it’s very safe” said Stanford University graduate student Ming Gong, co-author of the study recently published in the science journal Nature.

Unlike earlier rechargeable aluminum-ion battery prototypes which generally fails after only about 100 recharge cycles, Stanford’s prototype Advanced Aluminum Battery are composed of aluminum-ion cells that can cycle more than 7,500 times without any capacity loss – that’s 7.5 times longer than your average lithium-ion rechargeable battery in current production. Sadly, Stanford University’s aluminum-ion cell isn’t perfect, yet, as it can produce only about 2 volts per cell – far less than the 3.6 volts per cell that current lithium-ion cells can muster. Plus aluminum-ion cells, at the moment, can only carry 40-watts of electricity per kilogram compared to lithium-ion’s 100 to 206 watts per kilogram power density.

“Improving the cathode material could eventually increase the voltage output and energy density” says Dai. “Otherwise, our battery has everything else you’d dream that a battery should have: inexpensive electrodes, good safety, high-speed charging, flexibility and long cycle life. I see this as a new battery in its early days, It’s quite interesting.”

Unlike other competing prototypes, Stanford University’s Advanced Aluminum Battery that has the ability to be charged for 1 minute and yet could store enough charge to power a mobile phone for 24 hours was entirely made possible by a group of graduate students and their professor without a single cent of corporate backing whatsoever. Despite of this feat, Tesla electric car company founder Elon Musk is currently skeptical of the Stanford University’s Advanced Aluminum Battery on whether it will ever be as good – or become even better than – as those ultrafast-charging lithium ion types in current development. Hmm, if only Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk would put his money where his mouth is…

StoreDot’s Fast Charging FlashBatteries: The Future Of Rechargeable Batteries?

2015-03-31T02:25:00.000-07:00

With the ability to recharge in 60 seconds to power a mobile phone or allow an electric vehicle to travel 300 miles with a 5 minute charge is StorDot’s FlashBattery represent the future of rechargeable battery technology?

By: Ringo Bones

During the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show – CES – in Las Vegas, Nevada, an Israeli firm called StoreDot demonstrated a newfangled battery technology that can power a mobile phone with just a 60-second charge and a bigger version that could drive an electric vehicle for 300 miles (480 kilometers) on a 5 minute charge. With such capability, StoreDot’s FlashBattery technology could represent the future of rechargeable battery technology where battery recharging of electric cars and other electric vehicles could be as fast as the time it takes to fill up with gasoline in your local gasoline filling station. According to StoreDot, their newfangled FlashBattery represents an evolutionary step forward of the current ubiquitous lithium ion batteries.

Lithium ion batteries have been traditionally used for powering most portable devices and electric vehicles. While exhibiting relatively slow charging and discharging capabilities, over time, these chemical processes reduce the lithium battery’s ability to retain energy. Yet StoreDot has succeeded in isolating and maximizing the charge transfer rate and has enhanced it to heighten the superior characteristics of the FlashBattery.

Lithium ion batteries contain inorganic compounds in the battery’s cathode, typically comprising metal oxides or polyanions which are continuously recharged by the insertion of lithium ions. This process limits ionic conductivity, thereby reducing the power density and shortening the battery’s life expectancy. Moreover, the electrolyte used in lithium ion batteries is highly volatile and flammable, posing a severe risk to consumers, critical especially in electric cars.

StoreDot’s groundbreaking solution for their FlashBattery design is a hybrid architecture using a unique hybrid multifunction electrode (MFE), StoreDot’s FlashBattery combine two types of energy storage solutions, incorporating the high-power rapid-charging capability of current super capacitor technology with the high energy storage ability and low self-discharge rate of current lithium ion batteries.

This optimized charging ability is achieved through an innovative electrode structure containing proprietary organic polymers with legacy lithium metal oxide components on the cathode end that trigger reduction-oxidation chemical reactions. This solution causes ions to flow from a modified anode to a modified cathode at a speed that could not be attained through existing lithium ion battery technologies. Together with a proprietary separator and electrolyte, this new architecture delivers a high current and low internal resistance with enhanced energy density and a prolonged battery life.

While some battery manufacturers were able to improve only one of the following properties – either an increase in capacity, fast charging or extended battery life – StoreDot’s novel technology has optimized all three simultaneously, in addition to enhancing its safety. StoreDot’s organic compounds and newfangled proprietary battery architecture provide 4 times more charge / discharge cycles compared to any existing rechargeable battery, increasing the number of cycles from 500 to 2,000. Using compounds that are less likely to metalize during these cycles, StoreDot’s FlashBattery eliminates the risk of an internal electrical short almost entirely, which significantly prolongs battery life expectancy.

Specially designed for high current charging, StoreDot’s FlashBattery contains, in addition to lithium, non-flammable organic compounds encased in multi-layer safety-protection structure that prevents over voltage and heating and is therefore considerably safer than traditional lithium ion batteries. Containing their proprietary electrolyte which is an ecologically-friendly material, the FlashBattery meshes polymers and metal oxide together, resulting in an increased electrode stability and SEI performance at high temperatures.

Comprising carefully engineered organic molecules with high chemical stability, FlashBattery compounds can be tuned to match a variety of applications. The FlashBattery demonstrates rapid reduction-oxidation activity optimized compounds that increase the absorption of lithium ions and their counter-ions. In contrast to other batteries that contain toxic polluting heavy metals like cadmium, lead or mercury, StoreDot’s materials leave a minimal environmental footprint. And from a manufacturing engineer’s standpoint, StoreDot’s organic and polymer electrode’s raw materials are readily available thus reducing the overall cost of the battery.

Anode-Less Rechargeable Batteries: The Future of Rechargeable Batteries?

2015-03-29T01:58:00.000-07:00

Even though it is an integral part of a rechargeable batteries construction for proper operation, could eliminating the anode improve current rechargeable batteries performance by leaps and bounds?

By: Ringo Bones

Though not quite anode-less yet but a rechargeable battery manufacturing company called Solid Energy Systems is currently developing a nearly anode-less lithium ion rechargeable battery and has recently exhibited a working prototype during the 2015 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. Given the already widespread acceptance of the lithium ion rechargeable battery in mobile phone and hybrid / electric vehicle applications, Solid Energy System’s concept takes the strengths of the current technology much further by reducing the space taken up by the anode since it takes up most of the space in current lithium ion rechargeable battery configuration.

Solid Energy System’s nearly anode-less rechargeable battery concept could last twice as long as current lithium ion rechargeable batteries, while offering a 1,200 watt-hour per liter energy density. Designed with an ultra-thin metal anode, this configuration improves the cell-level energy density by 50-percent over current designs using graphite anodes and 30-percent improvement over silicon-composite anodes. Once marketed and used on current mobile devices, it could make them operate twice as long between recharging times.

According to Solid Energy Systems, the “secret” in boosting energy storage lies in swapping the conventional electrode material – graphite – for a thin sheet of lithium metal foil, which can store more lithium ions. Other battery manufacturers have been trying to use lithium-metal electrodes in rechargeable lithium ion batteries for decades with only a limited success. Solid Energy seems to have solved a couple of key problems which have caused such batteries to either stop working after a few charges or burst into flames. Current carbon anode cell energy density is at 600 watt-hour per liter while silicon anode cells offer energy densities of around 800 watt-hour per liter, while Solid Energy Systems’ near anode-less cell offer energy densities of around 1,200 watt-hour per liter.

Solid Energy Systems’ solution to make nearly anode-less rechargeable batteries to be as reliable as current lithium ion rechargeable cells without dying only a few recharge cycles or suddenly bursting to flames is via the use of both solid electrolyte and a liquid one. The solid electrolyte is applied to the lithium-metal foil, the ions don’t have to travel through this thin material, so it doesn’t matter that they are moving relatively slowly.

Solid Energy Systems’ prototype nearly anode-less battery can be recharged 300 times while retaining 80 percent of its original storage capacity – closer to what you would need in portable electronics. It also works at room temperatures whereas competing lithium-metal battery prototypes operate at temperatures too hot to be practical. As of late, most other companies investing in Solid Energy Systems’ newfangled batteries to become an economically viable commercial product are electric car / hybrid car companies with plans to use the newfangled rechargeable battery design in their electric cars.

Can There Be Nuclear Reactors That Consume Their Own Radioactive Wastes?

2014-08-27T09:27:00.000-07:00

With mankind’s energy demand slated to double in the next 30 years, will a nuclear reactor that burns its own radioactive wastes provide an answer?

By: Ringo Bones

With coal burning power plants that emit excessive carbon dioxide no longer viable in our increasingly climate change conscious global village, is there a power plant that provides reliable safe and competitively priced energy with the extremely low carbon dioxide output of traditional nuclear fission power plants? If Leslie Dewan gets her way, there will probably be – and lots of them.

Leslie Dewan CEO of TransAtomic Power already has plans for a “carbon neutral” energy generating power plant sans the risk and waste disposal problems of current nuclear fission power plants. Dewan was also named Time magazine’s 30 people under 30 that changed the world in 2013. Leslie Dewan got the idea of a nuclear fission power plant that consumes its own long-lived nuclear wastes back in February 2010 together with TransAtomic Power co-founder Mark Massie while working on her white-paper finishing her PhD in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dewan and Massie turned to a nuclear fission power plant technology developed but never commercialized in the 1950s due to its relatively high initial building cost in comparison to competing designs - i.e. the light-water fission reactors that comprise 99-percent of commercial power plants that had been in operation for over 50 years. The TransAtonic Power's WAMSR or Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor - can burn spent nuclear fuel safely in a liquid salt reactor instead of a traditional light water reactor similar to the design used in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant that went into a tragic meltdown after the March 2011 tsunami.

TransAtomic Power's WAMSR or Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor, it is way safer than current nuclear fission power plants – even from a defense analyst’s / counter-terror analyst’s point of view – because the uranium fuel assembly used to start WAMSR is “too diluted” to be used in a uranium-235 based nuclear device. On the long-lived radioactive waste issue, WAMSR produces only 20 to 30 kilograms of long-lived atomic wastes a year – like the “notorious” neptunium-237 which has a half-life of 2.2-million years (it still contains half of its radioactive strength after laying around for 2.2-million years) that can still be fashioned, with some skill, into a crude nuclear bomb.

This is way less than a conventional commercial light-water nuclear reactor which generates 20 to 30 tons of long-lived highly radioactive wastes in a typical year of operation. Speaking of the long-lived radwaste issue, commercial light-water nuclear fission power plants currently in operation have a current stockpile of 270,000 metric tons worth of long-lived radwastes whose permanent disposal is still in Limbo. Would TransAtomic Power’s WAMSR plant provide a viable solution?

Unfortunately, TransAtomic Power currently only has 3.5-million US dollars in government funding, way less than the billions of dollars of “subsidies” rubber-stamped by “conservative politicians” at Capitol Hill to conventional commercial light-water reactors currently in operation in strategic areas in the United States. In economic viability terms, TransAtomic Power’s WAMSR nuclear fission power plant only has half the operating cost per megawatt generated when compared to conventional commercial light-water nuclear fission power plants. If Uncle Sam green-lights Dewan and Massie’s proposal, it would take 8 to 10 years to open a Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor and probably just a few years to solve the United States’ high-level long-lived radioactive waste disposal and future energy problems.

Whatever Happened To The Schadewald Gravity Engine?

2014-08-24T13:42:00.000-07:00

Its working principles were described a few years after the OPEC Crude Oil Embargo of 1973 as a solution to the global energy crisis, but does anyone know whatever happened to the Schadewald Gravity Engine?

By: Ringo Bones

The October 17, 1973 OPEC Crude Oil Embargo and its impact on the energy hungry West finally made everyone realize that we are not only addicted to crude oil – and still are until this very day – but are also very dependent on non-renewable energy sources. Given that the still ongoing global energy crisis and our desperate search for viable solutions had for sometime established some so-called “perpetual motion energy religious cult” for sometime now - as if devotees of the “Our Lady of Perpetual Motion” already has the free energy problem already worked out. Speaking of energy generating machines that relies on the principle of perpetual motion, does anyone still remember the Schadewald Gravity Engine of the late 1970s?

The late, great physicist Paul A. M. Dirac conjectured that the universal force of gravity slowly decreasing. If this is true, consider a wheel with one heavy weight at the top. As the weight rotates to the bottom, the wheel picks up kinetic energy, which transfers back to potential energy as the weight swings up the other side. Since gravity is decreasing, the value of g is less on the second part of the full revolution, it follows that there should be a net gain in kinetic energy, causing the wheel to speed up indefinitely with every revolution.

Science writer Robert Schadewald reported this breakthrough as his own in Science Digest back in April 1, 1978 – a time where the 1973 OPEC Crude Oil Embargo was still topically fresh in everyone’s minds. Schadewald even closed the article by quoting: “As of April 1, 1978, I yield my invention to the public domain, that it may solve the energy crisis and bring peace and prosperity to the world. I ask only my initials be inscribed on the wheel of every engine, so that my genius may get the sort of recognition it deserves. – Bob Schadewald.” Given that he surrendered his invention to the public domain, free energy devotees of the late 1970s became very euphoric after reading the article.

Despite such bold hints that the article was intended as an April Fools’ Joke, Schadewald was taken seriously, even by the scientific community at the time. Some people wrote him and asked for more information. Others sent drawings of their own machines that allegedly work on the same Dirac – based principle and one person even offered to buy the plans quite convinced in believing that the physics and mathematics behind the Schadewald Gravity Engine were valid. Given the hints of “credibility” of the physics and mathematics behind the device, whatever happened to the Schadewald Gravity Engine?

Artificial Photosynthesis: Clean Energy’s Holy Grail?

2014-04-21T07:06:00.000-07:00

Given that unsustainable fossil fuel burning has now endangered our planet’s fragile climate, will artificial photosynthesis based energy generation be the clean and sustainable energy production’s “Holy Grail”?

By: Ringo Bones

Given the recent dire UN IPCC irreversible climate change warning, it seems that if humanity can master an energy generating system based on photosynthesis used by plants for millions of years would not only serve as a very viable clean, sustainable and renewable energy production for industrial use but also serve as a viable way of cleaning up the excess carbon dioxide already in the earth’s atmosphere produced by decades of uncontrolled fossil fuel burning. But is there an inherent difficulty of artificial photosynthesis that it is now labeled as the “Holy Grail” of cleaning up the energy generation systems of our industrialized world.

Joel Ager of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories is just one of the 5 energy research labs in the United States currently working to develop a viable way to replicate photosynthesis in generating energy for industrial use. Their latest prototype is an “artificial leaf” that uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and water to convert it into methanol / methyl alcohol but in a chemical reaction that’s ten times faster than typical plant based reactions found in nature. Once perfected, artificial photosynthesis could provide a truly carbon neutral way to generate electricity to power the wheels of industry. Though this is the latest phase of the development of artificial photosynthesis, research into the concept has been around for a few decades now.

Back in 1980, “splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen via ordinary sunlight” has been a goal of photochemists finding ways to wean industry from its heavy dependence on crude oil when it comes to energy generation. Michael Grätzel and his team at Lausanne, Switzerland had devised a system with special catalysts that carries out this process with high efficiency. The catalytic material consists of platinum and ruthenium dioxide deposited on titanium dioxide. A notable feature of the system is that it is effective over long periods, with hydrogen production undiminished after two days of ordinary sunlight exposure.

Low Cost Solar Thermal Power Plants: Sunny Future?

2013-08-19T04:57:00.000-07:00

With increasing concerns over the deleterious effect of excess industrial activity produced carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, are low cost solar thermal power plants the viable long-term answer?

By: Ringo Bones

Here’s a solar energy generation concept that could surely make solar power advocate Ed Begley, Jr. blush, but could low cost solar thermal power plants be a practical and economically viable long term solution in curbing our conventional power generating activity from dumping excess carbon dioxide gas into the Earth’s atmosphere? Luckily, the idea seems to point a sunny future on the concept of affordable renewable energy power generation.

A civil engineer named Andrea Pedretti says constructing low cost solar thermal power plants using simple aluminized plastic foil is up to 50 times cheaper than the glass based mirrors currently used as the parabolic mirror through in a solar thermal power plant. Aluminized plastic foils found in the market today are now about as corrosion resistant as the glass based mirrors currently used in solar thermal power plant construction. Given that aluminized plastic foils used as a mirror are much lighter than their glass based counterparts, most of the financial savings in constructing these types of solar thermal power plants could mostly come from using cheaper support structures bearing much lighter loads.

Andrea Pedretti’s low cost solar thermal power plant concept had been tested in a Moroccan cement factory and shows results on par with their costlier rivals that use conventional glass based mirrors on their parabolic through arrays that heat the working substance – like oil or water – that generate power by being directed to drive a dynamo type electrical generator. If scaled up, aluminized plastic foil based low cost solar thermal power plants could finally make practical clean solar power available to the parts of the world who can’t afford conventional solar thermal power plants. If the concept becomes successful, who needs the groundwater pollution risks of fracking.

Helium 3: Clean Energy Source Of The Future?

2012-09-26T05:40:00.002-07:00

Even though we have yet to design a practical nuclear fusion power plant that can economically use helium 3 as a fuel, does it really represent a clean energy source of the future?

By: Ringo Bones

All of our experimental controlled nuclear fusion power plants use helium 3 as a starting material. Unfortunately, a lot of experimental fusion power plants working on the ignition principle seems to be only able to sustain nuclear fusion for a few fractions of a second while those more ingeniously designed ones based on the working principles of Ballotechnic Superfluid are woefully underfunded, does this make the promised potential of an atomic isotope of a gas currently used to make balloons float called helium 3 be forever be in the far-off future? But even if we managed to design a practical controlled nuclear fusion power plant to use it tomorrow, do we ever know where to find it? But first, here’s what we know so far about helium 3.

As of 2011, even though it is still a laboratory curiosity, helium 3 can already be purchased at a rather steep price of 3,000 US dollars a liter. Ordinary, low-cost helium used for making balloons float are sourced from natural gas wells – primarily from Texas and adjacent states in the United States - where it comprises 1.75 per cent of the gas with 0.5 per cent carbon dioxide mixed in while the rest is methane. Some natural gas wells in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan contain a higher percentage of helium 3 compared to ordinary helium in comparison to other natural gas wells elsewhere on Earth, but most helium 3 on Earth – given its scarcity – primarily came from Cold War era atmospheric Hydrogen Bomb tests a little over 50 years ago before being halted by test ban treaties.

As we just recently found out, the closest abundant – and might be economically viable – store of helium 3 is on our Moon. Almost all of the helium 3 found on the Moon is primarily produced by our Sun and it got there via the solar wind and the occasional coronal mass ejection or two. Sadly as well as fortunately, the Earth’s magnetosphere deflects most of these radioactive helium 3 particles that came from our Sun to land on the Moon instead of increasing everyone’s incidence of cancer here on Earth. Back in July 1969, Neil Armstrong and his Apollo 11 team set-up the “aluminum foil” experiment on the Moon’s surface. The purpose of which to use the aluminum foil to capture atomic particles thrown off by the solar wind which are otherwise deflected by the Earth’s magnetosphere. Upon bringing back the foil for an extensive lab analysis at NASA, it was found out that the aluminum foil used in the Lunar surface experiment managed to capture a high percentage of helium 3 atoms – as well as atoms of argon and neon caught in the stream of the solar wind.

Integral Fast Reactor: The Safe Nuclear Fission Reactor?

2012-09-20T06:06:00.001-07:00

Shaken by the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster, will the IFR fulfill the nuclear energy industry’s needs for a safe nuclear fission power plant?

By: Ringo Bones

For over 50 years, the world has been waiting for the dream of the practical nuclear fusion energy to be realized – but engineers at Argonne National Laboratory had already tested the supposedly safe next generation of that old and much-abused standby – the nuclear fission reactor. Since 1991, nuclear engineers at Argonne had not only tested but had built a kind of nuclear fission reactor that not only is inherently safe but also consumes its own dangerous radioactive wastes – including dangerous radioactive wastes from other older commercial fission nuclear power plants.

The Argonne nuclear engineers’ design is dubbed the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR that uses high-energy or “fast” neutrons to trigger the nuclear fission chain reaction. In contrast, conventional light-water reactors which are currently used by over 99% of the global nuclear fission power plant industry typically slow their neutrons down with a “moderator” like graphite rods or heavy water. And given that fast neutrons can cause many more types of elements to undergo fission, the IFR is not limited to using uranium and plutonium that conventional commercial nuclear fission reactors use as fuel.

The IFR can also use the highly radioactive elements with half-lives of tens of thousands or even a few million years that are by-products of uranium and plutonium fission that are deemed as “radioactive wastes” as its own fuel. By separating the long-lived radioactive isotopes out of the waste stream, nuclear power plant operators using the IFR type nuclear fission reactor will finally eliminate the problem of having a huge inventory of radioactive wastes that requires hundreds of thousands, and like neptunium-237, even a few million years of containment. And unlike the more familiar breeder-type nuclear fission reactors still operating in Europe and Japan, the IFR can “burn” plutonium rather than producing it. It thus precludes the possibility that a cache of nuclear weapons-grade fuel might fall into the hands of rogue states and terrorist bomb makers – lessening the headache of the International Atomic Energy Commission when it comes to “auditing” potential nuclear weapons-grade materials used by most typical commercial nuclear fission power plants.

The other great advantage of the IFR, according to its designers at Argonne, is a safety system that makes it virtually resistant against those catastrophic loss-of-coolant accidents that crippled the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant during the Japanese tsunami of March 11, 2011. The IFR’s fuel assembly is designed in such a way that it would actually expand if it started to get too hot. This thermal expansion would allow more neutrons to escape from the reactor core and since it is the neutrons that trigger fission, the neutron leakage would slow the chain reaction and eventually bring it to a halt – before a disastrous core meltdown could occur. And given the lack of progress in the commercial applications of nuclear fusion, the IFR seems to be the only near-term technology currently available that can provide a huge energy source while addressing global warming and environmental concerns over excessive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in commercial power generation.

Can Germany Phase-out Her Nuclear Power Plants by 2022?

2011-06-10T02:20:00.000-07:00

Many see it as a fool’s errand from an economic perspective, but can Germany really wean herself out of nuclear power by 2022?

By: Ringo Bones

It can be quite dramatic what a few months can make. Near the end of 2010, German chancellor Angela Merkel was so busy lobbying for an extension of Germany’s existing commercial nuclear power plants to meet the country’s greenhouse gas emissions quota targets. Then in March 11, 2011, the tragic earthquake and tsunami that hit the north-eastern part of Japan that crippled the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Comparisons to the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster seemed inevitable despite the radiation spread largely confined to the immediate area, nevertheless, the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster renewed the whole world’s skepticism on commercial nuclear fission energy production. Now the question is; can Germany be able to wean herself out of nuclear power by the year 2022?

As a trained nuclear physicist Chancellor Angela Merkel had always been willing to accept currently assessed risks of nuclear power generation given that it is the only energy production method we that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses while at the same time being economically viable – make that the only non greenhouse gas emitting energy production method than can economically compete with coal, oil and natural gas. The stakes are high, but if Germany succeeds in replacing all the nuclear power plants currently in operation with wind and solar or other renewable energy alternatives, the whole world would certainly follow. And this would finally solve the problem of where to store all those high-level radioactive wastes and related safety concerns.

The 2011 International Year of Chemistry: Advancing Our Search For Clean and Free Energy?

2011-05-30T02:30:00.000-07:00

Given that one of its goals is drawing attention on is sustainable development, can the celebration of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry really aid humanity’s search for clean and free energy sources?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though the declaration of UN’s 2011 International Year of Chemistry was decided as far back as December 2008 in New York and Paris during the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted a resolution proclaiming 2011 as the International Year of Chemistry, humanity’s search for a reliable source of energy to run the global wheels of industry that doesn’t break the bank and the environment was decided even further back. But in what aspects of our search for reliable clean and almost free – i.e. low-cost – energy sources where the celebration of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry can provide the most help?

The field of rechargeable chemical rechargeable battery technologies could probably be the primary beneficiary of this year’s celebration of the 2011 International Year of Chemistry. Given that the current state-of-the-art technology of lithium iron phosphate batteries already made it as having almost the same power-to-weight ratio to gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, could more cleaver advances in the science of chemistry this year provide us with batteries that has the same power-to-weight ratio of gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines or even better them? That alone could make electric cars run without emitting a single gram of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – given that the electricity used to charge the batteries are produced via non-carbon dioxide emitting means of course.

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: The Death Knell for Commercial Nuclear Power?

2011-05-30T02:17:00.000-07:00

Despite of having been compared to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster even though the spread of radioactivity is still localized does the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster the death knell of commercial nuclear fission power generation?

By: Ringo Bones

As one of the most famous casualties of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami that hit the north-eastern part of Japan, the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster got a Level-7 Rating comparable to that of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, even though the spread of most of the radioactive debris due to the meltdown was confined to the immediate area of the Fukushima plant. Sadly the people and the press at large have perceived it as the death knell for commercial nuclear power generation.

The oft cited reason for the renewed anti-nuclear power activism raised by the Fukushima nuclear disaster is that if it happened in a technologically advanced and rich country like Japan with a culture that holds discipline and dedication to one’s job with such a high esteem that a much worse nuclear disaster could happen anywhere. But is this sound reasoning, or is it rather based on politics – make that the politics of ignorance - rather than the science of nuclear fission power generation? Well, all of this reminds me of what Isaac Asimov once said about “new” problems created by technology – he says: “If technology is the root cause of our current problems, then, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

Sadly, a much bigger problem is looming – i.e. the accelerating greenhouse effect in our atmosphere caused by our inconvenient failure to wean ourselves out of fossil fuel based power generation that could create much stronger storms, longer droughts, higher than average temperatures and raise sea levels before the end of the 21st Century. Commercial nuclear fission power generation has always been touted – and it is the only commercially and technologically viable one we have – of a carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases free power generation. Before solar, wind and other carbon-free alternative / renewable energy power generation schemes can fully replace coal and even nuclear fission power plants, nuclear fission power generation is - unfortunately – here to stay.

Are Oil Companies Out To Destroy Our Environment?

2010-12-01T00:49:00.000-08:00

Known for their corporate bullyism in keeping the renewable energy business model stillborn for the past 40 years or so, are crude oil companies really out to destroy our environment?

By: Ringo Bones

Since the disastrous crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico back in April 20, 2010 became headline news, crude oil companies has recently spent millions of dollars in advertisement and political spin on how caring they are of our environment and on how they spent millions in search of alternative and renewable eco-friendly sources of energy. Sadly, those millions might have been put to better use in preventing tragic spills – like April’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill from ever happening in the first place.

Exxon Mobil is the main supporter of climate change and global warming denial groups like the Competitive Enterprise Group and the Heartland Group. Exxon Mobil is also not investing enough of its profits into renewable energy research. Even though it is true that major oil companies do spend millions of their own money into renewable energy research. On average, major – make that big – oil companies invest on average 0.01% of their annual profits into renewable / alternative energy research.

Big oil companies’ number one –and oft quoted – excuse for not investing in renewable energy research: “Renewable energy still has to reach a point of economic viability. Thus making everybody ask – if you don’t invest in renewable energy, how can it ever become economically viable? Do these companies exist just to make money for their shareholders with utter disregard to the negative social impact of their company’s profit-making schemes?

Corn ethanol was pushed by the Corn Lobby on Capitol Hill as a response to the OPEC Oil Embargo shock of 1974. With billions of dollars in US government subsidies – courtesy of the American taxpayer and millions more spent in aggressive promotion / ads on TV, is corn-sourced ethanol truly green?

Corn-sourced ethanol may even increase the overall amount of carbon dioxide dumped into our atmosphere given how corn is grown in the US – i.e. extensive use of chemical fertilizers and energy intensive irrigation, etc. Worse still, less than 1% of US gas stations offer E85 ethanol. Given that the corn and oil lobby in the US tend to put profit first at the expense of us at the bottom of the corporate food chain, will a crude oil company product boycott be the answer?

Back in 1995, the environmental group Greenpeace managed to organize a boycott of Shell’s petrochemical products because back then the petrochemical company plans to sink its own decommissioned offshore oil rig platform into the North Atlantic. The Greenpeace organized protest action nearly brought Shell to its knees. Could Greenpeace organize another crude oil company boycott these days to make oil companies take better care of our environment?

Botryococcus Braunii: The Perfect Source of Biofuel?

2009-11-30T00:21:00.000-08:00

As the most promising research du jour as a source for biofuel, is Botryococcus braunii really lives up to the hype as the perfect source of biofuel / biodiesel?

By: Ringo Bones

As we race against time to find the best replacement of the fossil fuels we now currently use before their greenhouse gas byproducts cause global warming to become irreversible, an unassuming component of green slime / pond scum might have potential. Botryococcus braunii, a green slime micro-algae is now a subject of an on-going research to coax it to produce more lipoproteins / fatty acids to be processed into biodiesel similar to that of recycled french-fry oil. But will it live up to the hype as the perfect source of biofuel / biodiesel?

On the bright side of things, Botryococcus braunii is not only a perfect source of biofuel / biodiesel because unlike corn or coconuts, it is not currently being used as food by us. Second, it absorbs the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by our present use of fossil fuels that if it manages to replace them. If use becomes widespread, it will be a carbon neutral energy source as it just recycles the waste carbon dioxide back into fuel – reversing the worse effects of global warming.

Sadly, there is just one problem of the large-scale farming of Botryococcus braunii green slime micro-algae / pond scum biofuel is that it can only flourish up to a certain depth of water because it requires a lot of sunlight. Thus large-scale production of Botryococcus braunii will have to be truly large scale indeed in order for it to replace a significant portion –never mind totally replacing – all of the crude oil sourced transportation fuels that we currently use.

The ability of Botryococcus braunii to turn back excess atmospheric carbon dioxide back into an energy source is the most attractive aspect of this kind of biofuel production that current researchers are not even the least bit daunted by the scale of production problem. Genetic modification experiments to make Botryococcus braunii still more efficient in producing biofuels / biodiesel might solve the scale of production obstacles. But of all the biofuel / biodiesel sources out there, this unseemly component of pond scum could start an energy production revolution that’s ecologically sustainable in the not so distant future.

Can Nuclear Power Plants Help End Nuclear Weapons Proliferation?

2009-04-27T18:13:00.000-07:00

Safety concerns aside, can nuclear fission power plants play the part in ending the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation?

By: Ringo Bones

Ever since staff of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists began to concern themselves about the problem of global warming and climate change, the long-term future of nuclear fission power plants had inexplicably gained a new lease on life. Add to that the latest “fat-chance-but-good-nonetheless” rhetoric of US President Barack Obama on a nuclear weapons-free world and suddenly the long-term future of our fascination and disdain of everyone over 40 on nuclear fission power plants have put it yet again in the political center stage.

Even though the long-term future of nuclear fission power plants have always been driven by scientific, environmental, and political factors. It was the political factors that largely played the role on how the American people and the rest of the world view nuclear power. For example, ever since the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident on Wednesday, March 23, 1979, no new nuclear fission power plants have ever been constructed on US territory. But ever since the American public had shown concern over the threat of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, there are now calls to lift the ban on construction of new nuclear power plants in the US.

Also, if President Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons free – or a largely reduced number of nuclear weapons – world, nuclear fission power plants can play their part too. By converting those plutonium 239 – the active component in most nuclear weapons systems - into something that only a nuclear fission power plant can use. It will be easier to police the “disposal” of nuclear weapons grade material if they are stored in a few well-documented and secure places around the world. In other words the International Atomic Energy Agency will have an easier time watching over these weapons grade material as they are turned into something else.

Even though there is that eternal issue of safety given the high-profile nuclear power plant accidents of the past like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Though the much worse April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident has been an eternal sticking point when it comes to the issue of safety in nuclear power. We can always follow the French example. France gets 80% of their energy needs from nuclear fission and they never had a major nuclear accident, so an accident free nuclear fission power plant doesn’t just exist in science fiction. Though the issue of safe long-term storage of highly radioactive by-products that remain lethal for almost a million years – especially spent fuel rods – is still the major drawback of nuclear fission power plants.

Another factor plaguing nuclear fission power plants is that unlike coal-fired power plants, their power output cannot be varied as easily. This is a very common in northern countries that are dependent on nuclear power were they can have too much electrical energy in the summer when their peak energy needs are factored according to their winter heating energy needs. And also the economic viability of nuclear fission power plants cannot yet fully be assessed because they are for all intents and purposes a government-subsidized business entity especially in the United States.

These problems aside, the nuclear fission power plants unique selling point is that it emits not a gram of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during its electricity generating operation. And this will probably make nuclear power plants viable again, unless of course we can make wind and solar efficient enough to compete with nuclear fission sourced electricity within the next five years.

Cleaner Crude Oil Sourced Fuels?

2009-03-31T18:41:00.000-07:00

Given that bioethanol-based gasoline produces up to 90% less carbon dioxide than their crude oil-sourced counterparts, is it possible to refine a cleaner gasoline from crude oil?

By: Ringo Bones

Part of the automotive biofuel “mystique” that some environmentalist admire is the way they produce less carbon dioxide during their combustion process – up to 90% in fact. Unfortunately from an economic standpoint, our current biofuel production methods intended for automotive use still can’t compete price-wise with crude oil sourced automotive fuels. And for one good reason, countless billions has been spent on the global crude oil industry since Edwin L. Drake with the financial backing of New York-based investors of Seneca Oil began drilling for crude oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania back in August 27, 1859.

Even as relatively recently during the height of the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 – 74. Tenured chemists of leading crude oil companies through their technical know how and financial backing managed to extract more gasoline from crude oil than before. Like Rowland Hansford – a tenured chemist of Union Oil – whose patented Unicracking method manages to extract five barrels of high-octane gasoline from four barrels of crude oil. As a natural resource with billions of dollars worth of investments and infrastructure used in extracting it, in terms of price per unit volume, crude oil is for all intents and purposes is only slightly more expensive than bottled water at present.

That's why even if some biofuel pioneers still get their used French fry cooking oil to fuel their biodiesel vehicles practically for free, used cooking oil is actually more expensive price wise in comparison to it's crude oil sourced counterpart on a per volume basis. Although we can’t deny that it will soon run out and before it runs out after we hit “peak oil” it will surely skyrocket in price.

During the 1960’s a chemist from Société Française des Petroles BP in France named Alfred Champagnat had experimented in extracting edible proteins from crude oil. The process was said to be efficient: he managed to extract about half a pound of protein from one pound of crude oil. And the process is several thousand times faster in producing edible proteins than farm animals can produce it from fodder. Though now almost forgotten, can Alfred Champagnat’s process of extracting edible proteins from crude oil be modified for use in extracting automotive fuels from crude oil that mimic biofuels – i.e. one that produces up to 90% less carbon dioxide in automotive use?

Though Alfred Champagnat’s method of extracting edible proteins from crude oil could easily be modified for use in extracting biofuel-like automotive fuels from crude oil if major crude oil companies wanted to. Ultimately, there is a very urgent need to wean our industrialized society away from crude oil and other fossil fuels because for one they are running out. And they are one of the main contributors of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, climate change, and sea level rise among other things. A cleaner crude oil-source automotive fuel that produces way fewer greenhouse gases and other pollutants such as harmful oxides of nitrogen and sulfur would help us in tackling the problem of climate change and global warming. But sooner – rather than later – we should wean our industrial civilization from crude oil and other fossil fuels through greater investment in truly carbon neutral renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and really safe nuclear power like nuclear fusion - which would truly qualify as a real alternative energy in comparison to what we currently have.

Remembering Boron Automotive Fuels

2009-02-02T16:56:00.000-08:00

Made famous by Caltex back in 1964 when they launched it in Belgium. Given the promise of more energy per unit weight are boron additives in gasoline a viable answer to our energy needs?

By: Ringo Bones

It probably started during the 1960’s when NASA developed boron fuels in order to propel their space vehicles during Project Gemini, or was it the famed boron-based “zip fuel” used by the US aerospace company Northrop that allowed their XB-70 Valkyrie strategic bomber prolonged flights at Mach 3. Given these “promises”, the development of boron-based fuels for viable civilian – make that commercial – applications seems to irresistible for multi-national crude oil companies of the time. Remember that as far back as the 1960’s concerns are already voiced over the long-term supply of crude oil sourced hydrocarbon fuels, given that they are not exactly inexhaustible.

On the civilian side of things – i.e. automotive or car fuel usage – those old enough to remember will probably say that it is the crude oil company Caltex the first one to use boron in gasoline from their adverts back in 1964. Especially with print ads, which showed a cartoon figure at the wheel of a car and later driving a motorcycle while the text promised: “With BORON you can travel the world over without trouble.”

But the truth is it was the Ohio-based Standard Oil Company who was the first to develop boron as an additive for gasoline to boost its octane rating. Boron is very promising in this application because they were already widespread concerns over the environmental and physiological toxicity of tetraethyl lead, the original octane-booster and anti-knock additive for gasoline. Given that boron showed promise back then by making ordinary gasoline more energetic – thus making supplies last longer, so what’s the problem?

The problem is that all biomass on planet Earth – whether the fossil fuels crude oil, coal and natural gas or vegetable matter – is mostly carbon-based. The major source of naturally occurring boron is from salt lake deposits, which does create a substantially large carbon footprint in its extraction and processing. Which is the very thing we want to avoid in using boron in the first place. Plus, the way we used boron back in the 1960’s was only in minuscule amounts as additives to make our gasoline powered cars require less fuel for the given mileage. Eventually, boron-added gasoline created deposits and eventually clogged-up piston engines during long-term use thus was eventually abandoned. That’s why those old enough to have grown up during the 1970’s only saw non-functional gasoline pumps with the word BORON emblazoned on them.

Even though boron-added gasoline to those old enough to remember is now seen as belonging to the IGY (International Geophysical Year) and Project Apollo – era America, boron has turned up in unexpected ways for use in our cars today as we strive to move away from crude oil-sourced fuels. Like using boron to efficiently store elementally pure hydrogen for use in fuel cell powered cars. And also for use in advanced high-energy batteries for future electric car applications, which emit no carbon dioxide, whatsoever in its operation.