Table of Contents

Dear Mr. Pickens:

I saw your plan in two different You Tube videos. As a Caltech grad (BS, 1954; MS in EE, 1954), I was impressed. IMHO, we, as a nation, should consider all of the energy sources that you enumerated, but the "playing field" should be leveled. All government interference in the energy markets should be stopped. This will allow all technologies to compete--the market will select those technologies that are most cost-effective. It was government regulations, subsidies, and taxes that brought us the "energy crisis" (strictly speaking it is a power crisis rather than an energy crisis).

The energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long energy production depends upon consumption of material. Our scientific community tells us that that is impossible, but that hasn't stopped people from doing just that.

Consider Nikola Tesla's Electric Car which would go up to 80 MPH without any fuel or batteries. See this URL scroll down to "Nikola Tesla's Electric Car." If Tesla could build an electric car that required no fuel or batteries in 1931 with the electrical/electronic components available then, why cannot we do it today. The answer is that the Electrical Engineering mathematical model was changed circa 1900 to exclude all systems that could result a COP greater than unity; Tesla used the model published by James Clerk Maxwell in 1864. See: M. W. Evans et al., "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513 - 517.

WaterGas

The energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long as energy production depends upon consumption of material (mass). Our scientific community tells us that that is impossible, but that hasn't stopped people from doing just that.

Consider, for example. WaterGas, also called Brown's Gas, HHO Gas, Hydrogen on Demand, Oxyhydrogen, and HydrOxy, has been known and used since the 1920s. WaterGas is made by disassociating water into it's constituent parts--hydrogen and oxygen. This is usually accomplished with an electric current and called electrolysis.

Long ago the principle use for WaterGas was in a torch for heating, cutting, and welding metal. In recent times it has been used in automobiles to either decrease or eliminate the consumption of fossil fuel. The beauty of using WaterGas as the only fuel for a car is that it uses water to produce the gaseous fuel, burns the gas for the mechanical power to propel the vehicle, captures the combustion products (water vapor), and recycles the water. Thus, a WaterGas powered vehicle would produce no pollutants and would not require any pollution control hardware. The disadvantage of WaterGas as the only fuel for a diesel engine is that it will not work.

This link downloads an article that discusses both automotive uses of WaterGas with emphasis on eliminating fossil fuel entirely. It is clear that while the automobile engine can generate enough electricity to power an electrolyzer capable of increasing the mileage by up to, perhaps, 20% eliminating the need for fossil fuel entirely is a different matter.

The 3 references below explain the physics that supports an electrolyzer that produces enough WaterGas to power an automobile while the electricity needed to electrolyze the water is generated by the auto's engine. This means that the electrolyzer produces WaterGas at a rate up to ten (10) times the rate per ampere that Michael Faraday determined 160 years ago. The Michael Faraday limit has been firmly fixed in science because scientists eschewed non-equilibrium, asymmetric electrical systems which, thermodynamically, are non-equilibrium steady state (NESS) systems. Actually the possibilities for asymmetric electrical systems were removed from the mathematical model used for electrical engineering around the beginning of the 20th century.

Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Ref. 3

Increasing Power Plant COP

As you know most of our electric power is produced by burning coal or petroleum products. Why do they do that? Combustion produces heat/steam to run a turbogenerator. Is it necessary to burn all that coal and petroleum? No!

In 1983 Craig F. Bohren published an article with a question as the title (See "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" Am. J. Phys. 51(4). (323-327)). The classical answer to the question (of the title) would be an emphatic "That's Impossible" and cite the law of conservation of energy. In general relativity there is no such law.

But, the title came as a result of an experiment that since has been replicated in the non-linear optics lab of almost every university. The experiment works for light in the infra-red range (heat) for dielectric particles and light in the ultra-violet range (sun-burn) for conductive particles. If you read the article cited above, you will note that the particle absorbs (and re-emits) some 18 times more light than is incident upon it. This means the the particle amplifies the incident light by 18 times, that is, the particle in the experiment has a COP of 18. Where does the excess light come from? That question is answered in the reference below. Why has this not been used to produce all the power we need? Because it is impossible according the mathematical model used in Electrical Engineering.

The "Bohren Experiment" produces a COP of 18, but that is under ideal conditions. However, if under less than ideal conditions a COP of 2.5 could be obtained, regulated positive feedback would produce a source of heat energy that required NO fuel consumption. Existing coal burning power plants and existing petroleum products burning steam plants could be retrofitted with the technology explained below.

So far as I know the first time any inventor suggested the use of the excess energy demonstrated in the "Bohren Experiment" to produce electric power appears in a Provisional Patent Application which the inventors, Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, released into the public domain.

The title of the Provisional Patent Application is Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component.

If you contact me, I can supply the text in a PPA as a PDF or OpenOffice document.

The number of kilowatt-hours (KWHs) per ton of coal (or barrel of petroleum) is proportional to the Coefficient of Performance (COP). Therefore, if the COP could be doubled, the coal (or/and petroleum) consumption would be cut in half.

The basic research has been done, the concept proven, the PPA written; all that is remains is for someone to spring loose with the funding needed for development and implementation. The government will never do it because the mathematical model used in Electrical Engineering does not allow it.

The energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long as energy production depends upon the consumption of material (mass).

Renaissance for an Old Technology

My previous three messages dealt with "new" technologies (or more correctly old technologies that have not perviously been used as a primary source of energy). Today, I explore an old technology that you mention in your PickensPlan, but which you gave a short shrift.

You discarded Nuclear Power because it took too long to build a nuclear power plant and then there was the problem of nuclear waste. There is a global bottleneck that prevents more than two or three new nuclear plants from being constructed each year--lack of capacity to cast the giant steel reactor pressure vessels and containment vessels.

Well, a new company, NuScale Power, has overcome the problem of nuclear power by designing a nuclear power plant that can be mass produced complete and ready to be installed as a unit. The power plants are then shipped by rail, truck, or barge. The company also plans to provide a fuel reprocessing plant so the nuclear waste can be turned into new fuel. The French reprocess spent nuclear fuel--why can't we?

At this link you can hear a pod-cast about it.

The NuScale Power system will produce only about 1/30th as much power as a large light water reactor. Its advantage is that it produces power with a greatly simplified system that has no valves, pumps or external piping systems. It operates at temperatures and pressures that are familiar in the industry, uses fuel that can be manufactured on the same lines as conventional reactor fuel, and uses conventional pressure vessel technology that is small enough to be produced in a number of qualified factories. The electric power portion utilizes an off-the-shelf General Electric turbine-generator set.

Work on this new power system began at Oregon State University in 2000, was "spun off" to a private company, NuScale Power, in 2003, and should be through the NRC certification process in another 7 years. Then, NuScale Power will set up an assembly line to prefabricate the power plants for sale to utilities world wide.

As I've said in each of my previous messages the energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long as energy production depends upon the consumption of material (mass). However, there is so much nuclear fission fuel available, when Thorium, Plutonium (made from Uranium in a "breeder" reactor), and Radium (from Coal Ash piles) are included, that there is enough for thousands of years.

It's no longer funny

My previous four messages dealt with "new" technologies (or more correctly old technologies that have not previously been used as a primary source of energy) and one old technology, nuclear, that you rejected. Today, I look at ethanol (ethyl alcohol). You said, in one of your videos, that ethanol was a joke (and I agree), but it is no longer funny because our Congress, in their infinite, unconstitutional, wisdom has mandated the use of ethanol in automobile fuels.

Here are the reasons that ethanol is a joke--somehow we've got to get the Congress to understand this.

First, it takes approximately 90% of the energy that burning ethanol releases to produce the ethanol. I don't know whether or not that includes the cost of growing the corn, transporting the corn, and transporting the ethanol.

Second, making ethanol from food is a really bad idea--people in India are starving.

Third, running a car on ethanol actually reduces the gas mileage (by 5% to 10% in my experience). See footnote 1 .

Fourth, using gasoline containing ethanol in small engines (lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chain saws, weed trimmers, etc.) is causing damage that is expensive to repair.

Fifth, fuel containing ethanol is no "greener" than straight hydrocarbon fuel; that is burning ethanol produces essentially the same amount of CO2 per BTU as burning hydrocarbons.

Sixth, without a government subsidy ethanol laced hydrocarbon fuel costs more per BTU than straight hydrocarbon. Even with the subsidy, ethanol manufacturers are starting to lose money.

Seventh, using corn to produce ethanol has approximately doubled the price of corn (imagine that) which has increased the cost of everything made from corn.

Note that the problems with ethanol are presumably unintended consequences even though most of them are predictable. Everything we do has consequences; once an act is committed the consequences are unavoidable.

King Coal

This message begins a series of 6 messages for each of the remaining energy sources that you enumerated on the You Tube video explaining "The Pickens Plan;" I previously discussed the Nuclear option.

From the founding of our Republic the principle source of energy was wood; to say nothing of horses and mules. In the 19th century people began to become fearful that if things continued as they were there would not be a tree left standing on the North American continent. Fortunately, our trees were saved by King Coal.

Later petroleum took over from King Coal. But, as you have noted about one-half of the electricity in the U.S. is still produced by coal-fired plants. Additional coal is used for various heating tasks including making Coke which is used in the manufacture of steel. So, it is good that we have lots of coal--estimated 1,500 years worth.

The problem with coal is that it is not pure carbon, but is one of the most impure of fuels. Coal ash is composed primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, bismuth, and lead. The gaseous emissions contains radon along with oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulated *all* power plants the coal-fired power plants would all be shut down due to the emission of radioactive materials. This paragraph is based mostly on this website.

During World War II, Germany had lots of coal, but no petroleum. How did Germany manage to power all their military vehicles, ships, and airplanes without petroleum? They used a process they developed called the Fischer-Tropsch process. This or a similar process is used in South Africa to produce liquid hydrocarbons.

A small US-based company, Rentech, is currently focusing on converting nitrogen-fertilizer plants from using a natural gas feedstock to using coal or coke, and producing liquid hydrocarbons as a by-product.

The Syntroleum process produces synthetic fuel by the Fisher-Tropsch process (referred to as FT fuel), which can use natural gas, coal, or biomass as feedstocks.

So it appears possible to produce all the liquid fuels we need from coal. I remember during WWII my dad kept a can of Coal Oil for use around our house, so it would seem that even then we were making liquid fuel from coal. Today, Coal Oil is called kerosene or #1 Diesel and is the main component of jet aircraft fuel, but it is made from petroleum rather than coal. The advantage liquid fuels from coal is that no modifications of our vehicles or the infrastructure at the retail end of the supply chain would be required.

So where do we get the extra coal? There are two possibilities: 1) mine more coal and 2) use the process described here to reduce the coal consumption of the 150+ coal-fired power plants by 50%.

This would be an interim solution to part of the energy crisis. The energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long as energy production depends upon the consumption of material (mass).

Natural Gas

This message is the second a series of 6 messages on the energy sources that you enumerated on the You Tube video explaining "The Pickens Plan."

Natural Gas, mostly Methane (CH4), is widely used in the United States for domestic fuel, feedstock for various industrial processes, fuel to generate electricity (gas turbines and steam plants), and fuel for transportation vehicles.

I remember that in the early 1970's, the Southern California Gas Company pickup trucks used Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for fuel. They seemed to be able to go anywhere in the City with only one fueling station--I don't know how far they could go between fill-ups. The CNG tanks were quite conspicuous in the back of the pickups (two to four tanks per truck). The U.S. Geographic Survey estimated that there was 600 years of Natural Gas supply in the U.S.; the Natural Gas from the Alaska North Slope was being pumped back into the ground because there was no pipeline (still isn't) to transport the Natural Gas to market and the environmentalists would not let them just burn the gas on-site.

That was then, now there are lots of fueling stations in the Greater Los Angeles area, but fueling stations for CNG are sparse to none very far removed from large cities. See locations of fueling stations in the U.S. There is also now available a home fueling station that requires a natural gas line and electricity to fuel a car (or truck); again, however, natural gas lines are not available in remote locations. Bottom line: for a long time vehicles will have to be dual-fuel (either CNG or liquid hydrocarbons)--or stay near home. See footnote 2 . Moreover, now we are importing Liquid Natural Gas (LNG); as I write companies are seeking permission to build three LNG terminals here in Oregon (most of the gas will be sent to California).

Another way to use Natural Gas would be to use the Syntroleum process to produce synthetic fuel by the Fisher-Tropsch process (referred to as FT fuel). The synthetic fuel (liquid hydrocarbon) could be distributed through the current gasoline/diesel infrastructure and used in current vehicles.

Whether we convert vehicles to use Natural Gas and build a whole new infrastructure for CNG distribution or build plants to convert Natural Gas into liquid hydrocarbons and avoid the conversion cost is really an economic question. The politicians seem to have made the decision to convert the vehicles to CNG and build the infrastructure; they have started providing subsidies to push the development their way. May I say that politicians have a track record of getting things exactly wrong?

Natural Gas for transportation vehicles (regardless of how it is used) is an interim solution to part of the energy crisis. The energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long as energy production depends upon the consumption of material (mass).

HydroElectric Power

This message is the third a series of 6 messages on the energy sources that you enumerated on the You Tube video explaining "The Pickens Plan."

See hydroelectricity for extensive narrative on hydroElectric power which is one of the three energy sources enumerated in the PickensPlan employing free energy and as such does not consume any mass for the production of electric power. The Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the system is, therefore, infinite. The power produced from falling water, so in the final analysis the power source is gravity and is available 24/7 as long as there is water flowing in the stream, creek, or river. On a volume basis hydroelectric power is 7735 times more effective than wind because water is 7735 times denser than air (62.43 compared to 0.08071 pounds per cubic foot).

As an example, a 1.5 MW hydro electric plant might look like this (on my website, www.emref.net, there is code to allow the viewer to change the parameters):