Forward

This document is a work in progress. I expect feedback from you as well as continued research to allow me to improve this document over time. What is at stake is our survival and the survival of our children, our childrens children, the future of mankind. It seemed important to document what I do know, however incomplete and perhaps inaccurate my knowledge may be, so that others may incorporate and build upon it. The urgency of the problem argues for presenting as much information as I can as soon as I can. Please e-mail comments, corrections, or expansions to nanook@eskimo.com Please put "Sustainable Future" in the subject line so that I might spot it amoungst all of the spam that I receive.

The Problem

Our long term survival and the survival of many species with which we share planet Earth is dependent upon our rapid transition to a sustainable economy. This means meeting our basic needs, food, clean water, shelter, clothing, which requires energy and raw materials, and the handling of waste products in a manner that can continue indefinitely. We can not maintain our current practices and survive as a species. Fossile fuels will eventually exhaust and before that happens they will become prohibitively expensive. We are fighting wars over remaining resources as those resources dwindle. The burning of fossile fuels will continue to change the atmospheric composition with negative consequences for ourselves and other life. Our current agricultural methods rapidly depleats soil. Our handling of radioactive and chemical wastes are polluting our air, land, and waterways. Our land use practices are less than optimal. We build on good flood-plain farmland and then farm mountainsides.

The Resistance

One of the largest hurdles is getting over the idea that in order to have a sustainable economy we must live a simple marginal life. There are adequate resources available to provide for all of our material needs and wants if we obtain, process, and utilize those resources wisely.

There are people on this planet that feel their wealth has no meaning unless others live in poverty and they control all wealth. Those people are more difficult to accomodate in a sustainable economy and will resist movement in that direction. They obtain power by controlling resources. They artificially inflate the value of those resources by limiting availability. They will resist sustainable alternatives because it devalues the resources they control. Oil barons control the flow and hence the price of oil. Power generation and distribution is artifically limited to induce shortages and drive rates up. They don't want to see people using alternatives to petroleum derived gasoline such as bio-diesel or alternative sources of electricity such as wind or solar. Energy isn't the only issue when it comes to sustainable living but it is arguably the largest and so it is the issue I will address first.

Energy

Energy is really at the heart of everything. All life forms utilize energy in their life processes. We humans have been so successful primarily because we've developed the unique ability to utilize energy external to our bodies allowing us much more control over our environment (intentional and otherwise) than any other contemporary species. Blue-green algae affected the planetary environment on a larger scale providing the earths initial supply of atmospheric oxygen that made animal life forms possible. We seem now to be well on our way to reversing the capability of the planet to sustain animal life forms, including our own.

We utilize energy for transportion, agriculture, industrial processes, heating and cooling, lighting, communications, and for many other purposes. Living organisms utilize energy internally for their life processes and man has externalized and amplified this usage for our own gain. We need to replace non-renewable energy sources with sustainable renewable energy sources that we can use indefinitely. During the conversion process, we need to utilize the non-renewable resources as effeciently and sparingly as possible. Moving towards sustainable energy sources also requires energy. We should therefore concentrate on replacing non-renewable resources that require the smallest use of energy to replace first. This will allow the bulk of the energy requirement of moving towards sustainable energy sources to be provided by sustainable sources. In economic terms, it will minimize the expense involved in converting to renewable resources.

Energy utilization can be broadly catagorized into fixed utilization, that is uses where the energy is consumed at a fixed location, and mobile utilization. Examples of fixed utilization include home heating and cooling, manufacturing, street lighting. Examples of mobile utilization include transportation and many agricultural uses, tractors, combines, etc. Virtually any energy source can meet the needs of fixed utilization. Mobile uses generally requires a fuel although there are exceptions; rail can be electrified, short range vehicles can be electrified. With no new technology, there are renewable energy sources that can satisfy all of these needs, but new better technology continues to emerge and we should take positive steps to encourage this.

Eliminating our dependence upon foreign oil must take a high priority in our overall efforts towards sustainable energy because our consumption of foreign oil is extremely politically destabilizing, not just in that region, but globally. The amount of money President Bush is currently requesting for Iraq, 87 billion dollars, could purchase 17.4 Gigawatts of solar electric generating capacity at current retail rates for solar photovoltaic generating equipment. This is a generating capacity equivalent to about 30 mid-sized nuclear fission power plants. That generating capacity would be available to us as long as the sun shines whereas all of the oil in Iraq, would only provide a fraction of our energy needs for a few decades at best.

Near Term Sustainable Energy Sources

Sustainable energy sources exist in various states of maturation. Some can be readily plugged into existing infrastructure, others require the deployment of entirely new infrastructure. Some are ready to go online, others require considerable development. We need to bring those online that can be now, develop those that aren't yet ready as rapidly as possible, and continue to do the science work that will bring us new technologies. We need to start building sustainable infrastructure.

Thermal depolymerization is a process which reduces complex organic materials into light crude oil. The process mimics natural geological processes. Heat and pressure are used to decompose long chain polymers into short chain hydrocarbons. I first read about this in an article in the May 2003 edition of Discover magazine entitled "Anything into Oil". I previously had a link to it but they removed it from their site. According to this article, this process can produce oil from wastes for around $15 per barrel and eventually for less. I have read elsewhere that this process could displace 95% of the oil we import. The beauty of this process is that it eliminates a waste disposal problem at the same time it addresses dependence on foreign oil at a cost that is less than the present going rate for foreign oil. This process has been developed for commercial use by Changing World Technologies. At this time this process is just being brought online with one demonstration plant and one commercial plant. This is an example of a process which has matured to the point of being commercially deployable and should be deployed as fast as possible. Every minute we continue to discard sewage, burn plant slash, pile organic garbage on the ground and bury them, we are wasting a valuable resource and continuing to pollute our environement unnecessarily. There is no good reason to limit deployment to the United States, organic wastes around the world could become tomorrows basic hydrocarbon stock instead of sucking what's left out of the ground.

Recycling existing hydrocarbons means we're pulling that much less out of the ground and that's a step forward. We'll always have organic waste matter, thermal depolymerization will insure we'll have oil that we need for plastics, drugs, fertilizer, and lubricants even after we stop burning oil. While vehicles and farm equipment may be converted to hydrogen or in some cases battery power, some applications such as airplanes may not be as readily adapted due to power-to-weight ratio requirements. I'm not suggesting this will allow us to replace fossile oil and just keep doing what we're doing, from the standpoint of pollution it is undesirable to do so even if we had an unlimited supply of oil.

Update

Changing World Technologie first commercial plant which converted turkey guts into oil, has run into a problem, that being one of odor control. Apparently people living in the area found odors produced by the operation of this plant objectionable. Better scrubbers were installed but this increased the cost of operation.

Then the supply of turkey guts, which initially was expected to be free, well, turns out that instead they have to pay $30-$40/ton because the turkey guts otherwise can be fed to other animals. This may not seem a lot but given that a ton of turkey guts only translates into two barrels of oil, this adds $15-$20 to the cost of that oil.

And it seems the operators were expecting a tax break for producing biofuels, but so far that has not been forthcoming. So the initial cost projections based upon free turkey guts, tax incentives that didn't materialize, and without the cost of the scrubbers to control the odors, turned out to be highly optimistic and the real cost of producing a barrel of oil in this manner is approaching $70 in the real world.

Well, right now with the open market cost of oil hovering around $70 per barrel, this is just barely economic. But in Europe where the rules on turning herbivoirs into carnivoirs are more restrictive and as a result, turkey guts are free, it may be more economical and now Changing World Technologies is looking at building plants in Europe.

So what started out looking like a great technology is now not looking so economically attractive. However, as oil reserves continue to deplete and world demand continues to increase, the price of oil will no doubt continue to go up and it is just a matter of time before this technology does become viable even in the United States.

Understanding the Hydrogen Economy

Hydrogen Energy Storage

Recently, a lot of lip service has been given to converting to a hydrogen economy. I'm sure you've seen fuel cell cars mentioned in the media more than once. What really needs to be understood is that in this context, hydrogen is NOT an energy source, it is only an energy storage medium. This is the context that President Bush is referring to when he talks about a hydrogen economy. Used in this context, this will allow us to use any energy source for mobile applications just as with fixed applications by using hydrogen as a chemical storage medium. Hydrogen electrolysis is typically around 60% efficient but if the process is optimized, it can be as high as 92% effecient. The most significant factors in efficiency are temperature and salt content. A small amount of salt is added to water to enhance conductivity. Given that fuel cell vehicles are much more effecient than internal combustion vehicles (the fuel cells can be as effecient as 95%, newer electric motor designs have a similiar effeciency, and newer designs put the motors right in the wheels eliminating any drive train losses), the overall effeciency of this system can actually be better than burning hydrocarbons directly in an internal combustion engine.

Hydrogen Energy Production

But where we really need hydrogen is not as an energy storage medium but as an energy source. Most of the stars in the universe make their energy by fusing hydrogen into helium. Stars in their old age may fuse helium and still heavier elements into even more heavy elements up to iron at which point the fusion process no longer yields energy and therefore must stop. We can do this right here on earth but utilizing the heavier hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium. It is scientifically possible to do so with ordinary hydrogen but our current technology is not sufficently advanced to create the pressures and temperatures necessary to fuse hydrogen in significant quantities. This doesn't represent a major problem however because approximately one out of every 6000 atoms of hydrogen in seawater is deuterium and that is sufficient to provide for all of the energy needs of earth for approximately 15 billion (American Billion 10 to the 9th power) years. Another very desirable fusion fuel is Helium-3 which is rare on earth but plentiful on the moon.

There is a lot of bad and outdated information regarding the feasibility of magnetically confined controlled hydrogen fusion. Much of it would lead you to believe that it's not possible for another 25-50 years. If it doesn't happen for 25-50 years the reasons will be purely political because the science really has advanced to the point where it really is doable today. YOU need to put pressure upon your congress critters and get it done! If we don't, cheap oil is going to run out soon, and we'll all starve because production and distribution of food without modern farming equipment and distribution methods will not feed todays global population.

Current State of Hydrogen Fusion Science

Today we're at a point where there are at least two groups that have designed plants that could operate continuously at commercial power levels. What's more, at least one design would be only about a tenth of the cost to construct as an equivalently sized nuclear fission plant. There are still though some unanswered questions that would suggest the need to build a pilot plant for scientific research that would operate at commercial power levels, approximately 600 megawatt, sustained. These questions pertain to the ability of materials to withstand the constant neutron bombardment that the containment vessel and other internal components will be exposed to. Also in question is whether the diverter, a device for removing the helium nuclear ash, will operate effectively at commercial power levels. Personally, I don't believe neutron bombardment will be a problem for the containment vessel. Graphite is one of the materials being considered for the containment vessel of commercial reactors because it is inexpensive and abundant. We have good experience with graphite used as a moderator in commercial fission reactors and it holds up well in such service so I do not believe this will be a problem. Also, commercial reactors will have a lithium blanket which will absorb neutrons and breed tritium so most of the neutrons won't reach the graphite.

The Requirements of Magnetically Confined Controlled Hydrogen Fusion

Nuclear fusion involves a deuterium-tritium plasma heated to temperatures on the order of one hundred million degrees. Atomic nuclei are positively charged. Like charges repel. In order to get them to fuse sufficient average velocity needs to be achieved to overcome this electrostatic repulsive force. This is why such high temperatures are required. No physical material could withstand such high temperatures. Because atomic nuclei are charged, they can be confined by a properly shaped magnetic field. However, because they are charged and rapidly moving, they tend to create fields of thier own and wriggle out of a confining field. There are several methods of overcoming this tendency. First, the stronger the external field, the less effect of internal fields on confinement. Second, if the plasma is properly shaped, it's own field can be made to pinch it and further enhance confinement. Lastly, the application of neural network technology has allowed for realtime adjustment of external fields to counteract the tendency for the plasma to wriggle out of the confining magnetic field.

Recent Advances Make Controlled Hydrogen Fusion Practical

The main advances in confinement recently have been in three primary areas. First, the understanding of plasma physics. Experiments with the TFTR, START, MAST, NSTX, JET reactors and others showed that the more spherical plasma is easier to confine and can operate at densities that are higher than can be obtained with the more conventional Tokamak torrus shaped plasma. Second, the application of neural nets to dynamically adjust the external field has significantly improved confinement. Lastly, a commercial reactor would need to use super-conductive magnets because conventional copper magnets would be too power hungry. Recently, advances in superconductor designs have allowed superconductors to remain superconductive with fields as high as 15 Teslas. This is in the range of what is needed for confinement. Processes have been developed to form these materials, which are normally very brittle ceramics, into wires that can be wound into magnetic coils. Also, experiemental reactors have not been setup for breeding tritium but commercial reactors will have a lithium blanket for this purpose. The lithium blanket has been shown to experiementally enhance the fusion reaction by collecting protons that escape the plasma preventing them from re-entering the plasma and cooling it. This cuts core heat loss significantly.

Advantages of Fusion over Fission

Nuclear fission produces radioactive waste products. Nuclear fusion produces non-radioactive helium, the same stuff that makes blimps float. In a commercial reactor, a lithium blanket would absorb neutrons from the reaction to breed tritium fuel needed for the reaction. The tritium is radioactive, but it is a fuel which is consumed, not a waste product which must be disposed of. The amount of tritium that would be in the reactor at any given time is very small making the possibility of a release relatively insignificant. It does not have the potential to contaminate a large area with radioactivity and disperses rapidly. There is also some amount of neutron activation of the components subjected to neutron bombardment (which incidentally is a reason why neutron bombardment of food to kill pathogens is not such a good idea). So a reactor at the end of it's lifetime would have some low-level radioactive debris that would have to be buried. But this cools off in a relatively short period compared to nuclear fission waste which remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years.

Nuclear fission plants can melt down. You may have read about so called new technology nuclear fission plants based upon a pelletized fuel bed. The claim the industry is trying to make is that these reactors are inherently safe because even if all cooling is removed, the fuel pellets can withstand the white-hot temperatures they soon reach. These plants are NOT inherently safe. These pellets use a graphite coating around the nuclear fuel and helium coolant gas is pumped through them. Graphite, carbon, when heated white hot, reacts violently with air. Even at lower temperatures it reacts quite violently, as it did in Chernobyl where graphite was used as the moderator. Without coolant, although the graphite will withstand the white-hot temperatures, the vanadium steel containment vessel will not. As soon as it cracks, and at those temperatures it will, and air is admitted into the reaction vessel, a terrific chemical explosion will occur and you'll have Chernobyl two. These reactors are NOT inherently safe.

A fusion reactor has zero potential to melt down. The conditions necessary for fusion are difficult to maintain and any loss of containment will result in the rapid cooling of the plasma below temperatures capable of sustaining fusion and the required densities will also be lost. An out-of-control runaway fusion reaction is impossible. A small amount of tritium could be released into the environment but this represents minimal risk. While tritium is highly radioactive, it is an extremely light element so rapidly rises in the atmosphere, although it has a radioactive half-life of twelve and a half years, it has a biological half-life of only ten days, your body cycles out hydrogen rapidly. Tritium does not become part of bone like plutonium or get taken up by the thyroid like Iodine-131. So even if you are exposed, it does not stay in your body for a long period of time so the exposure times are short. The risks are almost zero. They aren't zero, but they certainly represent far less potential for exposure to radioactive material than either fission plants or coal fired plants. Coal fired plants release significant quanties of radioactive materials into the atmosphere as well as highly toxic mercury, and that's when they're operating normally, not a failure mode.

At the current rate of consumption, coal can provide for our energy needs for at best several hundred years. The same is true of nuclear fission even if we use breeder reactor technology and incorporate thorium. Contrast this to sufficient quantities of deuterium to provide our energy needs for 15 billion years and it's obvious fusion is the way to go. Then consider that coals combustion product is primarily carbon-dioxide contributing to global warming, and nuclear fission produces radioactive waste we don't know how to dispose of, and fusion becomes the clear winner from an environmental standpoint. With coal and fission environmental concerns limit the usage rate and thus our economic development. With fusion there are no environmental consequences and thus our economic growth and prosperity can be effectively uncapped. For all practical purposes, it represents unlimited energy and that does come with new responsibilities, but we need energy and the way we're producing it now is not sustainable.

Making It Happen

I would urge you all to write your congress critters and suggest a Manhattan Project or Apollo style program to bring controlled nuclear fusion commercially online. This is not a matter of political idealogy, it's a matter of survival of civilization and the majority of the worlds population. A continued reliance on fossile fuels is more than just an issue of global warming. We are running out of cheap easy to reach oil, if we do not get a sustainable alternate source online now, a substantial portion of the worlds population will starve. We can not produce enough food to feed the worlds population without modern energy intensive methods.