Periodically some type of biofuel is splashed across the headlines. Algae was the darling of the media a few months ago. Earlier it was all about cellulosic ethanol. Then there was ethanol from kombu, a seaweed.

Now, it’s making ethanol from waste gasses.

Each time a new biofuel appears in the headlines, an attempt is made to determine the biofuel’s viability, and especially its cost.

In the case of kombu, it turns out that all the territorial waters of the United States would be required to produce enough ethanol from kombu to replace the gasoline used by Americans.

Frequently, the area required to produce a significant quantity of ethanol, is very large. In one process, an area the size of Arizona would be required.

Bankruptcies and closures, such as Range Fuel’s, have resulted from attempting to produce cellulosic ethanol.

Costs are the real Achilles heel of biofuels.  Algae for use in the Navy’s demonstration project cost around $16 per gallon.

Now, a new biofuel has reached the headline stage: Can bacteria save the planet?

The assumption in the headline is that CO2 is causing global warming, i.e., climate change, and that the new process, that uses CO2 and CO, will convert the CO2 into ethanol.

LanzaTech, originally a New Zealand company, now in Illinois, claims to have such a process.

It claims to have completed a pilot plant that has produced at the rate of 100,000 gallons per year, i.e., 2,381 bbls per year.

To keep this in context, the United States uses around 8,000,000 barrels of oil per day for gasoline.

However, the company also claims to be building a facility in China that will be able to produce 714,000 bbls per year, still a small quantity when compared with gasoline usage in the United States.

The LanzaTech process uses a proprietary bacterium to convert CO2 and CO into ethanol and other chemical products.

The concept is intriguing, because the source of the CO2 and CO can be obtained in large volumes from steel mills and coal-fired power plants. The availability of feed stock in high volume is something most other proposals have lacked.

Coal-fired power plant in China. Photo by D. Dears

Unfortunately, after making all these claims, nothing in its web site or in its brochure discusses cost. A request for cost information was ignored¹.

A telling comment in its website was a statement that producers of ethanol from these plants could obtain credits for eliminating CO2 emissions, which infers that these credits, or subsidies, are required to make the process profitable.

If that’s true, then we will once again have a process that isn’t competitive with gasoline.

Time will tell whether LanzaTech is just another claimant on tax payer dollars.

Note:

1. An email was sent to LanzaTech on April 25^th.

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A good example of theoretical research is particle research that requires building huge accelerators, such as the Fermilab, to investigate the fundamentals of matter.

Actually, much of the money being spent by the Department of Energy (DOE) is on applied research.

With applied research, it’s very likely that industry has already investigated the possibility of pursuing a particular line of research, and found it to be uneconomic.

Be that as it may, the question arises what to do next after DOE has found its efforts to be uneconomic. Stop investing in the research, or throw good money after bad?

An excellent example of this is hydrokinetics for rivers, referred to as water power, analogous to wind power.

The theory is simple: Fast running water in rivers can turn propeller-like turbines to generate electricity. The same principle applies to tidal waters and estuaries.

Examples of hydrokinetic Turbines, from DOE Brochure

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) studied hydrokinetic opportunities on rivers and found that, at best, hydrokinetics might be able to provide 3% of America’s electricity.

The EPRI report goes on to say that the actual amount that’s practical to produce is an unknown fraction of 3%.

In other words, a lot less than 3%.

Nearly half of this is in the lower Mississippi River, from St. Louis, south.

Here is what a 2010 report by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power said about impediments to hydrokinetics: “Hydrokinetic technology can be affected by debris,

sediment, frazil and surface ice, river dynamics (turbulence, current velocity, channel stability), and the effect of turbine operations on fish and marine mammals and their habitat.”

In addition to these problems the installations produce small amounts of electricity. For example, the trial at Minnesota’s Hastings Dam, utilized two turbines rated 100 KW each. Each unit was roughly 12 feet in diameter.

The physical size of these units would surely interfere with river barge traffic unless they are installed adjacent to existing dams.

Units rated 100 or 200 KW produce very small amounts of electricity. In addition, each location requires expensive connections to the grid.

Typically, groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists support this type of uneconomic development, because it’s renewable and doesn’t emit CO2.

Cost figures are currently unavailable, but a quick look at the units’ size and complexity would indicate high cost.

These comments apply to rivers, and not necessarily to estuaries and tidal waters.

Siemens, for example, is testing a 1.5 MW unit, the same nameplate rating as most wind turbines, that’s 120 feet long in European waters. Voith, from Germany, is building a 1 MW unit in Cherbourg, France.

It’s unknown how these units will survive the rigors of salt water, such as from fouling, i.e., barnacles, or how costly they will ultimately be, but at least, they may produce credible amounts of electricity.

River hydrokinetic installations, however, provide minuscule amounts of electricity, and are very costly.

In addition, these comments do not apply to adding generating capabilities to existing dams where generating equipment is not currently installed. See More Hydro is Better than Wind that describes this opportunity.

Perhaps DOE could find better uses of tax payer money than supporting hydrokinetics for river applications.

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

They are also struck by how much of the ranch was built and maintained, personally, by President Reagan.

It was my pleasure to visit the ranch again this April.

We are fortunate that a private organization, the Young Americas Foundation (YAF), was able to purchase the ranch, and maintain it for posterity. While the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, is a marvelous repository of the President’s papers with a museum highlighting the events of his presidency, the Reagan Ranch is a testament to the man as a humble human being.

Rancho del Cielo, or Ranch in the Sky¹, was Reagan’s way of getting back to his roots, and away from the clamor of Washington DC.

Donn Dears in front of Reagan Ranch House.

The ranch house is small, 1,600 sq feet including the enclosed porch area. The original adobe structure, built in 1872, remains, and is where the bedroom and family room are located. The entrance door, beyond the patio, table and chairs, opens to the front living area which was originally a screened-in porch.

Reagan, working with a few friends, enclosed the screened-in porch to create the sitting area and dining room, as shown in this picture.

Front room on entering Reagan Ranch House.

After laying the linoleum flooring, Reagan remarked how much it looked like real brick. While President, he and his family would eat Thanksgiving dinner at the table shown in the distance. He ate Christmas dinner at the Whitehouse so his secret service detail could remain at home over Christmas.

The small lake behind the house, Lake Lucky, was also relined and, essentially, built by Reagan.

Lake Lucky. Photo by D. Dears

Much of the fencing was built by Reagan, using an old-fashioned post-hole digger rather than a mechanically powered auger.

Everywhere one turns, from the Tack Room to the trails on which the Reagan’s rode, one sees the hand of Reagan, the man.

Access to the ranch is up a 7-mile, dirt, narrow, winding road. There have been many historic figures who have visited the ranch while Reagan was president: Queen Elizabeth, who was driven up the narrow road, Soviet Premier Gorbachev, Prime Minister Thatcher and numerous Senators and Congressmen and women.

The view from the ranch is spectacular.

Donn Dears at Psalm 121 overlook, adjacent to location of helipad.

The YAF was able to purchase the ranch as the result of a bequest by John Engalitcheff, a Russian immigrant who escaped from the Bolsheviks and started a business in Maryland. His was the story of many immigrants who lived the American dream.

In 1984 he was honored to attend a Whitehouse reception where he was to receive the Presidential Eagle pin. As Engalitchaff approached President Reagan, he collapsed at the president’s feet. “Cradled in the president’s arms, he apologized for disrupting the event.” ² Engalitchaff died a few days later.

Inside the ranch house, there is the bookcase in the closed-in porch, just to the left of the picture, with a few of the many books read by Reagan. In the family room, there is a pair of Jackalopes mounted over the doorway. In the bedroom, there is the bench at the foot of the bed where Reagan’s feet rested as they extended, beyond the end of the bed, with his 6’ 2” frame.

Tack Barn at Reagan Ranch. Photo by D. Dears.

I visited the secret service building, located on the hillside above the ranch house, and also explored the barn and Tack-Room.

While the ranch is privately owned, I hope all Americans will someday be able to visit the ranch, if not in person, then by video.

Reagan believed in free enterprise, free markets and freedom. The ranch epitomizes the humble and hard working men and women who built America.

1. Map of ranch is at http://www.yaf.org/VirtualTour.aspx#TheRanchHome
2. Libertas, the publication of the Young America’s Foundation, Spring, 2008.

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

In the 25% scenario, coal would account for 40% of electricity generated in the United States. This compares with a high of 53%, in 1997, and is, according to the EIA, the current forecast for 2013.

Large steam turbine and generator of the type found in coal-fired power plants.

But will this be the new normal, or will coal’s role decline further? Or, will coal’s role increase?

Three factors affect the outcome.

First, is the relative price of coal versus natural gas.

When natural gas is at $3.00 per million BTU, it has a decided advantage over coal. But when natural gas is over $4.00 per million BTU, coal to gas switching slows, and then stops as the price of natural gas goes much above $4.50. As it exceeds $4.50 per million BTU, a reverse trend can evolve where coal replaces natural gas.

Currently, the price of natural gas is around $4.40 per million BTU, and may approach $5.00 per million BTU before the end of the year.

With natural gas at these prices, coal could regain some of its market and increase its share of electricity generation from 40% to around 45% in 2014.

Second, is the effect that Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations will have on coal-fired power plants.

These regulations will require large investments in pollution control equipment, where current installations can’t meet the MATS regulations. MATS will begin to effect coal-fired power plants in 2015.

MATS, unless changed, will result in more coal-fired power plants being closed, which will, once again, begin to reduce coal’s share of generation.

Based on previously announced closings, plus probable closings due to MATS, coal’s share of electricity generation could easily fall to below 40%, possibly as low as 35%.

In so far as whether the United States has enough natural gas, i.e., as discussed in the April 12 article, the probability is that the effect of converting coal to natural gas should be only slightly more than estimated for the 25% scenario; possibly reducing years supply from 88 to 87 years¹.

Or stated differently, the long-term effect of coal to gas conversions, due to the relative price of coal and natural gas, won’t have a major effect on the number of years supply of natural gas.

Third, is the effect that EPA rules on CO2 emissions have on coal-fired power plants.

As currently stated, the rules barely allow natural gas combined cycle plants to operate, and prevent the building of new coal-fired power plants of the most modern, efficient design.

If natural gas prices were to remain around $5.00 per million BTU, or higher, ultra-supercritical coal fired power plants² would be competitive with natural gas.

Existing EPA rules on CO2 prevent the United States from being able to take advantage of the less costly electricity these plants could produce.

If the EPA was to extend the rules on CO2 emissions to existing coal-fired plants, it would have a devastating effect on the production of electricity. There is no known method for capturing CO2 from existing power plants, and no known method for sequestering the CO2 underground, so these plants would have to shut down if the rules were enforced.

This is why global warming became an energy issue when the EPA determined that CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

It’s also why these articles include information on the science behind the issue, such as the report by former Apollo astronauts and scientists³.

It should be noted that natural gas power plants also emit CO2, so, if CO2 is as important as the EPA claims, natural gas power plants will also have to be shut down.

The largest variable affecting how much coal will be replaced by natural gas is the EPA’s regulations on CO2 emissions.

Note:

1. This is for coal to gas switching alone, and doesn’t include the other alternative uses for natural gas as discussed in the April 12 article.
2. China and Europe are building ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants.
3. The Right Stuff report is available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/AGW%20Science%20Assess%20Rpt-1

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Not only is this a terrible idea, but it’s totally unnecessary.

At $25 per ton, it could, according to Friedman, raise around $1 trillion over 10 years.

He recognizes this will hurt people, so suggests the government return some of our money to those in need.

What this really does is give the government even more control over our lives. Once again, Friedman believes it’s the government that creates jobs, by investing some of the money from the carbon tax to build roads etc.

Every time a stimulus is tried, whether it’s in the 1930s or more recently, it never works … it never creates jobs.

A carbon tax would kill jobs first, so the stimulus could only, at best, recreate the jobs lost.

Taking money from everyone with a carbon tax and then returning a fraction of it to a few people, doesn’t add money to the economy … it merely takes from one group who no longer have the money to spend, and gives it to another group in the hope they will spend it. The net result is no money added to the economy. Take a dollar from one person and give it to another doesn’t increase the money available to spend to stimulate the economy.

Remember, the carbon tax would tax virtually everything, from gasoline to electricity, including natural gas for heating our homes. It would increase manufacturing costs, such as for building automobiles, appliances and turbines. These plants use electricity and natural gas, which will be more expensive and add to the cost of building these products.

Our ability to export would be hurt because our products would cost more. More jobs lost.

From every perspective, a carbon tax is bad for people, bad for the economy and bad for America.

Book Cover of Carbon Folly

Not only is a carbon tax bad for America, it’s not necessary.

A new report from a group of Apollo astronauts and scientists has established, once again, that CO2 is not a threat and isn’t responsible in any significant way for global warming².

The question they posed and answered was:

“To what extent can human-related releases of CO2 into the atmosphere cause earth surface temperature increases that would have harmful effects?”

Quoting from their bullet point conclusions to whether CO2 could induce warming:

• “Carbon-based AGW science is not settled. This refers only to the Carbon or CO2 role in induced warming
• “Natural processes dominate climate change (although many are poorly understood).
• “Non-Carbon-based AGW anthropogenic forcings are significant. These include land use change, Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, black carbon, and aerosols.
• “Carbon-based AGW impact appears to be muted. Other sources are not necessarily muted; the impacts of changing solar activity, El Nino/La Nina-southern oscillation (ENSO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), black carbon, etc., are observable.
• “Empirical evidence for Carbon-based AGW does not support catastrophe.
• “The threat of net harmful total global warming, if any, is not immediate and thus does not require swift corrective action.
• “The US Government Is Over-Reacting to Concerns About Anthropogenic Global Warming.”

Also:

• “Computer Models Need To Be Validated Before Being Used In Critical Decision-Making.”

So, on one hand, we have Thomas L. Friedman, a writer of opinion based op-eds and books, and, on the other, a group of people who put astronauts on the moon and brought them back safely.

A carbon tax is a terrible idea.

1. This is actually a tax on CO2 emissions and not carbon. Carbon is entirely different than CO2. Carbon is found in pencils and blackboards. CO2 is required for life on earth.
2. The Right Stuff report is available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/AGW%20Science%20Assess%20Rpt-1

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Overhead distribution line in Florida, with concrete poles.

There are approximately 6,000,000 miles of distribution lines¹ in the United States, which should give pause to any call for putting all of them underground.

Table 1 shows the costs involved. 

Costs can go over $1,000,000 per mile in both rural and urban areas, such as when there are rock ledges, or when there are high-water tables. Multiplying 6 million miles by $400,000 per mile means the cost of putting all distribution lines underground would be, at a minimum, $2.4 Trillion. This equals 16% of the U.S. GDP.

It should be noted that putting distribution lines underground doesn’t eliminate the threat of outages, though outages would be reduced. Outages would still occur due to flooding, dig-ins and cable failures. This is especially true along the coastline where flooding is caused by storm surge.

After WWII, many new subdivisions put the distribution lines underground. These were in rural areas: mostly farm acreage with few obstructions, where the cost of installing underground cables was very low, well below the average cited in Table1.

But these communities were still subject to outages when the distribution lines feeding the underground sections failed.

Putting sections of the distribution grid underground doesn’t completely solve the problem of outages, though it can help.

Cable life is another uncertainty. The history of overhead lines is that they last for 80 years, while the history for underground cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) ³ cables indicates a life of 35 years, though, because of their relative newness, this history is incomplete.

The issue of whether to put power lines underground has been studied on numerous occasions, such as by Houston Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Virginia and North Carolina.

In general the conclusion has been, “Complete undergrounding of all electrical facilities is not the solution to the outage problems caused by storms.”

The impact of failures should be considered when evaluating the issue. Hospitals and other emergency installations need to have reliable backup power no matter what decision is reached … no system will be perfect. Perhaps, gas stations should also have back-up generators.

While much of the above was covered in an earlier article, it’s worth repeating that there is no perfect solution to how to protect the grid from storms.

In established urban communities, the cost of moving overhead lines underground is very high, and the cost should be compared with the potential for having fewer outages.

 Notes:

1. An Updated Study on the Undergrounding of Transmission Lines, Edison Electric Institute, 2009.
2. Ibid
3. Cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) cable is a more recent development, with many utilities still using high-pressure, fluid-filled pipe (HPFF). The advantages and disadvantages are described in a paper Underground Electric Transmission Lines, published by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

At any time, however, new, contradictory evidence can upend any theory. Science is based on a continuing evaluation of all theories  … none are sacrosanct; all must be validated by observed data.

It is here where Post-Normal Science (PNS) parts company with reality. While real science requires validation of a hypothesis by observed data, Post-Normal Science interjects opinions.

Post-Normal Science is proposed as a replacement for real science whenever:

“Facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent.”

This is a formula for replacing scientific objectivity with opinions.

Whose facts are used? Whose values are acceptable? Why are the stakes high? Why are decisions so urgent we can’t take the time to get the facts?

Each of these questions relies on opinions for answers, creating a pseudo science.

There are several techniques being used to support Post-Normal Science.

These include the use of:

• Consensus
• The correlation between unrelated facts to establish cause
• The precautionary principle.

Consensus is being substituted for scientific facts. Consensus creates the illusion that, if most scientists or experts believe something is true, then it must be true.

In the 1600s, the experts put Galileo on trial for heresy because he believed the earth went around the sun, rather than the prevailing consensus claiming the sun orbited the earth.

Very recently, there was a consensus in the medical profession that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. In the 1980s, only 30 years ago, two Australian physicians claimed that 90% of peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria. It took nearly twenty years for the consensus to accept it had been wrong, and that bacteria were the cause of stomach ulcers.

A consensus is not proof; it’s a substitute for proof.

And what is the significance of correlations? Here are examples taken from a presentation by John Droz, physicist, on the scientific method¹.

Ice cream sales and shark attacks have excellent correlation. Rock music and US oil production have a strong correlation.

Examples of correlation that don’t establish cause. From J. Droz presentation, Science Under Assault.

It’s obvious that ice cream sales and shark attacks are unrelated, as is rock music and oil production, but what about situations where it’s not obvious? Should we accept what someone tells us, or should we look more critically at the correlation?

Correlation doesn’t establish causation.

The precautionary principle sounds reasonable; i.e., better safe than sorry.

People tend to accept the precautionary principle without thinking, because it sounds reasonable, even though it can do great harm by preventing society from reaping the benefits of new technologies, products or processes.

The precautionary principle allows regulatory agencies to make decisions when there is little or no scientific evidence to support the decisions.

The rationale behind the precautionary principle is simple, and simplistic: Whenever a new technology, product or process poses a possible threat to human health or the environment, even when the threat hasn’t been proven to exist, it’s best to prevent the technology, product or process from being adopted.

Needless to say, anything new tends to pose a threat because it is new.

For example: Electricity can be dangerous; it can, in fact, kill. The precautionary principle, if in vogue in the late 1800s, could easily have prevented the development of electricity.

Today, the precautionary principle is preventing such things as genetically modified foods, new vaccines and beef being imported by the EU from North America if it’s been treated with hormones, even though the EU and WTO found no scientific rationale for any ban.

The precautionary principle is arbitrary, and without any basis in science. It is the poster child for Post-Normal science, where opinions are the basis for decisions.

How does Post-Normal Science (PNS) affect energy?

The various aspects of PNS, i.e., accepting consensus as proof, rather than establishing the facts; using correlation to define cause without establishing relationships; relying on the precautionary principle rather than on science; collectively, create an environment hostile to the development and use of energy.

Stopping the Keystone pipeline because the oil from Canada might emit more CO2 than oil from other sources, is an example of how PNS affects the development and use of energy.

Should the risk of an oil rig accident in the Gulf of Mexico preclude developing deep oil?

Should we continue to allow EPA regulations to curtail the use of coal because there is an alleged consensus that CO2 causes global warming?

It’s been argued by some, that smart meters shouldn’t be used because radiation might harm the health of homeowners. The facts belie this assertion, but there’s always the possibility, no matter how remote, that radiation from smart meters could be a health risk. Should smart meters be banned?

Critical thinking can discern the truth when media headlines and magazine covers reverberate with warnings, without facts.

Energy provides the underpinnings for our society, and has the potential to free billions of people elsewhere in the world from poverty and misery. Shouldn’t we challenge the fear mongers with facts?

Note:

1. John Droz has an excellent video that goes into far greater detail, with the necessary supporting data. The video, Science Under Assault by John Droz is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cng56swJ_4I#t=1s

*  *  *  *  *  *

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Obviously, few in Congress would acknowledge they are deliberately denying constituents an opportunity to know what’s in the legislation being enacted, but knowingly or not, that is what’s happening.

When Congresswoman Pelosi said members had to pass the 1,990-page Affordable Care Act in order to know what was in it, she was absolutely right … but shouldn’t have been.

When the Waxman-Markey, Cap & Trade Bill was being debated, I copied all 1,700 pages of the Bill and attempted to read it so as to be able to argue intelligently against it.

The first few pages of the Waxman-Markey Bill are simple enough, essentially itemizing the various sections.

The Waxman-Markey Bill contained many disastrous provisions, detrimental to the United States, and harmful to nearly every American, but describing those proposals is not the intent of this article.

Instead, this article will describe the lack of transparency in any Bill that’s more than a few hundred pages long.

The fun begins on page 10 of the Waxman-Markey Bill, partially shown here.

Page 10 (partial) of the Waxman – Markey, cap and trade Bill.

First, note that Sec 101 refers to another Act, so it’s necessary to go to that Act to understand what this proposed Bill will actually do.

Next the new SEC 610 of the existing Act, has 16 pages of definitions that get increasingly complex. And, within some of these definitions there are references to more existing Acts.

For example, under (a) 18, H, it reads, without the identifying line numbers:

1. “Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, as that term is defined in section 632 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17211).”

Within the first 26 pages of this 1,700-page Bill, there is enough complexity to deter anyone from reading the Bill, let alone understanding it.

There’s also language such as:

“as set forth in subsection (d), except as otherwise provided in subsection (g).”

Interestingly there are many places where there are statements without definition, leaving it up to someone to interpret the language. For example on page 38 there is a reference to:

“electricity savings achieved as a result of market transformation efforts;”

But, nowhere is “market transformation efforts” defined.

There are circular references to various sections of this Bill, and also with references such as: “described in section 786(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (b)(1)(A)(iv)(II).”

Within the first 150 pages of the Bill there are at least 50 references to other Acts or sections of the U.S. Code. This means that, every time there is a reference to another Act or section of the U.S. Code, it’s necessary to set aside this Bill, locate the Act in question and the referenced Section in that Act, in order to read how this Bill affects the other referenced Act, or visa versa.

Drafting Bills in this manner has been going on for a long time, but enacting Bills of over 1,000 pages hasn’t been routine.

Some try to legitimize the length of Bills by comparing the number of words in a Bill with some unrelated text. For example: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix has 257,000 words, while the Affordable Care Act has 234,812.

A book can be read sequentially, while a Bill has references that require constantly interrupting a chain of thought and researching the referenced Act or U.S. Code. The Affordable Care Act had approximately 1,000 references that had to be located and then read separately.

No one could possibly have known what was included in the Waxman-Markey Bill.

I read the Bill and some of the references, but it was beyond my ken to understand the entire Bill or all its complexities. It was clear, however, that the Bill would dramatically and negatively affect everyone in United States.

But the problem doesn’t end when the Bill is passed and signed into law … it merely shifts the burden elsewhere.

Every government Department and Agency will probably need to read the new law to determine how it affects them.

Waxman-Markey also stipulated that the Administrator of the EPA and various “Secretary(s)”, e.g., Secretary of the Navy, is, or are, empowered to write the regulations for implementing the law.

It’s no wonder, for example, that the nearly 2,000-page Affordable Care Act has resulted in over 15,000 pages of new regulations.

It’s impossible for the average person to have any genuine understanding of what any Bill contains or how proposed legislation will affect them.

One word of caution: The government posts what it says is the content of an act on a government web site, for example, the Affordable Care Act.

In fact, the government’s Internet posting is a summary, prepared by the Department in question, of its interpretation of what the Act means, together with an outline of the act, but NOT the actual text¹.

The government’s Internet posting can be misleading².

While it’s not possible, in a brief article, to go beyond describing the complexities of proposed legislation, it can be said unequivocally that no Bill, or portion of a Bill, should be passed until it has been read, at least, by the staff of every member of Congress.

Fortunately the Waxman-Markey, Cap & Trade Bill, wasn’t passed.

Note:

1. For those who are interested, here is a link to a copy of the Affordable Care Act. http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
2. Government posting at http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html  The government’s posting, in this case, adheres to party policy.

*  *  *  *  *  *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

An area in which Secretary Mabus could devote some valuable resources is the development of printing.

Printing could alleviate critical logistic issues concerning spare parts.

Spare parts are a big issue, costing billions and impairing readiness.

All 285 navy ships, as well as those in the Military Sea Lift Command, carry spare parts, such as shafts for fuel pumps, or gaskets. Not only do these spares represent a guess as to what may be needed, they also take up valuable space and add weight to a ship where the ship’s center of gravity is always of concern. Spare parts also cost a great deal, and tie up money that could be put to better use.

Often as not, the part needed to effect a repair is not on board. Today, this requires obtaining the part from another nearby ship, obtaining it from a depot in the United States or from somewhere else in the World. These involve delay and cost, while leaving the ship at reduced readiness.

3D printing can produce many of these parts. If each ship were to have a 3D printer on-board, together with the powdered or liquid printer materials in easy-to-store packages, the ship would be able to make many of the parts it might need, especially in an emergency. If the necessary software wasn’t on board for a particular part, the ship could have the software sent to it electronically.

An individual ship has hundreds of thousands of parts, most with low failure rates. The probability is that the needed spare won’t be on-board. It’s possible that there may be only a few spares for a unique part located anywhere in the world, and a ship with a 3D printer could create the spare without taking the time or incurring the cost of trying to locate and transport the part to the ship in need.

In addition, a design upgrade could be accomplished by making the newly designed part on-board, rather than waiting for the part to be produced in the United States and then shipped to ships around the world.

There is also the potential to design parts that take less space and weight, and that are simpler to install and use. Quoting from a USNI Proceedings¹ article, [3D printing can] “radically change ship construction, making designs that might not be possible using conventional techniques.”

Intricate pipes and ductwork could be made using 3D printing. And, ships at sea, in far flung waters, could make replacements for these components using the 3D printer on-board.

Boeing already uses air-ducts made from 3D printing² in its aircraft.

3D Printed model of Long-Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) made by Christopher Dears at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Superimposed on sky background

While this picture is of a hollow model, metal parts and tools are already being made using 3D printing³.

Admittedly 3D printing is in the early stages of development, but no less early than the development of bio-fuels.

• Bio-fuels exacerbate logistics, while 3D printing simplifies logistics.
• Bio-fuels detract from readiness, while 3D printing improves readiness.
• Bio-fuels add to cost, while 3D printing reduces costs.
• Bio-fuels haven’t any benefits, other than cutting CO2 or possibly using less foreign oil, while 3D printing opens the door to new creative solutions to ship design.

Where should Secretary Mabus use the Navy’s valuable resources: To promote bio-fuels or develop 3D printing?

As an individual who served as both an Engineering and Damage Control Officer in the Navy, I vote for 3D printing.

Notes:

1. Print Me a Cruiser! USNI Proceedings, April, 2013.
2. From Economist magazine, 2012
3.  3D printing company, Z-Corp video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jQ-aWFYT_SU#!

*  *  *  *  *  *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Small SMRs of 25 MW, and up to around 250 MW, have unique characteristics that may restore public confidence in nuclear energy.

In addition, SMRs could provide electricity to communities in  Africa and other areas where people live in poverty for the lack of electricity.

SMRs can be built in a factory, where tighter controls can improve quality and eliminate the interruptions that occur when nuclear power plants are constructed, piecemeal on site.

SMRs can be installed underground where it is extremely difficult to damage them, and where they won’t be affected by hurricanes or tornados.

They will be passive, capable of shutting down without human intervention or the need for back-up power.

They can be built one module at a time, as building blocks, increasing size as demand increases. This would be valuable when building SMRs in Africa and other areas where demand is initially low, but bound to increase.

An SMR requires a substantially smaller investment, making it easier to obtain financing, though the cost per KW may be similar to a large nuclear power plant. This advantage shouldn’t be underestimated. The amount of money required to finance a typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plant is approximately $6 billion, an enormous amount.

Financing is extremely difficult in the United States, and even more so in undeveloped countries, such as in Africa. With an equal $6 billion investment, SMRs could be built in a dozen undeveloped countries, freeing millions from burning dung for cooking meals while providing light when the sun goes down.

The mPower reactor, proposed by Babcock and Wilcox, recently received funding from the Department of Energy.

Other designs under consideration include NuScale Power, Westinghouse, Gen4 Energy (formerly Hyperion) and SMR, LLC.

Russia is pursuing the development of SMRs. One of their designs would be mounted on a barge that could be moved to different areas in need of electricity.

Needless to say, SMRs have been criticized by the Natural Resource Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists, among others. One group criticized DOE for providing support for the mPower reactor.

It’s easy to visualize how SMRs could be used in Africa, and other areas lacking a widely developed transmission system, such as India.

Without SMRs, nuclear power plants in the United States are likely to cease operating, one by one, over the next 60 years, as their operating licenses expire and aren’t renewed.

*  *  *  *  *  *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.